Sitting of 8 May 2000

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

  National Lottery
  Dr. Ian Gibson: What assessment his Department has made of the impact of the changes to the national lottery introduced by the National Lottery Act 1998. [119872]
  The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): The changes in the 1998 Act reflect the Government's commitment to ensuring that lottery money gets to where it is needed. The strategic plans that distributors are obliged to produce under the Act place a high priority on targeting areas of social and economic deprivation, and new powers of delegation mean that decisions are now being taken at a more local level.
  Dr. Gibson: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that, in the past few days, there has been discussion about delivering the funds and making life better for people and that the changes in the lottery fund have done just that? They have brought confidence to people with cancer because of the provision of radiotherapy machines; they have brought our crazy brilliant young scientists money to try out their ideas and they have thrown money at the right areas of sport. However, does my right hon. Friend agree that the greatest success has been in cities, such as Norwich, where funds have been put into areas of great deprivation so that the young and the old alike can indulge in pursuits that give them confidence and optimism for the future?
  Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend is right. Indeed, we promised the electorate that we would make such changes when we went to the country in the general election. I am very pleased that we have now put those promises into action. None of the things that have happened—the establishment of the new opportunities fund, the ability to solicit applications from areas that need them, the ability to establish joint schemes between distributors, the fairer geographical spread that is now coming through and,
  482
  above all, the focus on areas of social deprivation—would have been possible without the changes that we introduced in the 1998 Act.
  Sir Sydney Chapman: Whatever the merits of the new opportunities fund—I note what the Secretary of State has just said about the promises made before the previous election—is it not in total contrast to what the Prime Minister said about the lottery fund when he was Leader of the Opposition? He said that he did not
  believe that it would be right to use lottery money to pay for things which are the Government's responsibilities.
  Mr. Smith: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was right to say that when he did and it remains the Government's clearly stated policy; it is what we are doing. Lottery funds are used for things that are additional to the core responsibilities of government; they do not replace Government expenditure.
  Mr. Derek Wyatt: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will know that the Library has produced a fine research document on where lottery money is spent. In many constituencies, £30 million, £40 million or £50 million is spent on lottery tickets, but much less is returned to those communities—between £2 million and £5 million. In the light of that, does he feel that there should be a stronger community element in a new lottery Act?
  Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend is right to identify a discrepancy, which is partly due to the fact that only 28p out of every £1 spent on lottery tickets comes back to any of the good causes established. The average figure per constituency of spending on good causes by lottery distributors is about £10 million, but I am well aware that many constituencies have not reached that level of expenditure. I can fully understand the anxiety that colleagues on both sides of the House have in ensuring that a fair share of lottery money is spent across the country as a whole. In that respect, I welcome the fact that, over the past year, the number of small grants made by lottery distributors has doubled, because that means that more money reaches the grass roots and local communities everywhere across the country.
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth: I seem to remember that the Secretary of State's constituency does rather well out of the lottery.
  Is not the centrepiece of the Government's changes to the lottery the creation of the new opportunities fund, which is the Government's lottery fund? Does the Secretary of State think that it is doing all right because, of the £540 million that it has so far received, it has to date paid out only £61 million? That means that, effectively, the Government are sitting on £480 million worth of lottery players' money. What is the explanation for that? Is it that there is a lack of projects, which I doubt; is it incompetent bureaucracy, which is entirely possible; or are we dealing with a slush fund that was deliberately and cynically created to buy back failing support in the run-up to a general election? After last Thursday, I think that we can all guess the answer.
  Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman's questions get more unbelievable every month. The new opportunities fund

  483
  has already embarked on its out-of-school education and child care initiative, for which £400 million is earmarked. It has also embarked on its information communications technology training and content creation for teachers and its health living centres programme, for each of which £300 million has been earmarked, and its cancer prevention, treatment and care initiative, for which £150 million has been earmarked. Detailed bidding for the green spaces and sustainable communities initiative and the access to lifelong learning initiative is about to begin.
  All those are at the core of the new opportunities fund mission to provide projects related to health, education and the environment, and have been welcomed in constituencies throughout the country. The Tories are effectively telling the nation that they would scrap after-school clubs, healthy living centres and initiatives on cancer prevention, treatment and care if they got back into government.

  Tourism
  Mr. David Kidney: What action his Department is taking to promote environmentally sustainable tourism. [119873]
  The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Janet Anderson): The Government's strategy, "Tomorrow's Tourism", published in February 1999, places sustainability at its core and seeks to integrate the economic, social and environmental implications of tourism.
  Mr. Kidney: I recall my hon. Friend coming to Stafford last year to launch the borough council's strategy for tourism, and I thank her very much for that. I am aware of how much good work her Department does to promote the maximising of the economic advantages of tourism while preventing environmental harm to the attractions themselves, and more widely. What is my hon. Friend's Department doing to persuade others such as councils, tourism organisations and private owners to have a similarly high regard for sustainability?
  Janet Anderson: My hon. Friend is right, and I congratulate him and Stafford borough council on the work that they are doing in that area.
  It is important to get the balance right. Tourism is the fastest growing industry in the world and we want our fair share of it. However, we want to ensure that future generations, too, can avail themselves of such opportunities. I hope that the strategy paper that the English Tourism Council's task force is producing this autumn will give councils throughout the country good advice on that matter.
  Mr. John Greenway: Does the Minister agree that uninhibited access to environmentally sensitive countryside can sometimes do immense damage to the attractiveness of the very landscape that visitors and tourists want to enjoy, and can threaten wildlife and conservation? Clearly, there is consensus on the need for a balance. However, will the Minister join me in urging her ministerial colleagues in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions to listen to the concerns of Britain's 4 million anglers and reject a Labour
  484
  Back-Bench proposal to allow an unrestricted right of access to all river banks and fisheries, which would be extremely damaging to the sport of fishing, as well as fish stocks and other wildlife?
  Janet Anderson: That is not a matter for my Department. However, I assure the hon. Gentleman that the sustainable tourism component of our strategy has been informed by our consultation document, "Tourism—towards sustainability", which formed part of the wider consultation conducted by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions on updating the United Kingdom's sustainable development strategy. That represented the first ever attempt by Government to consult on such a scale.

  Film Industry
  Mr. Gordon Prentice: How many Indian-produced films were made in the UK in the last 12 months for which figures are available; what benefits accrued to the UK film industry; and if he will make a statement. [119874]
  The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Janet Anderson): Two Indian-produced films were made in the UK in the last 12 months. The UK film industry benefits directly from the production budget spent on the use of UK crew and facilities.
  Mr. Prentice: That was an interesting reply. However, my hon. Friend will be aware that Bollywood annually produces about 600 films, rivalling Hollywood. Given the creativity and talent in Britain, what can the Government do to encourage the growth of our indigenous film industry?
  Janet Anderson: I assure my hon. Friend that the Film Council, which was established by the Government and launched last Monday by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the greatly respected director Alan Parker, will do much to help. Of course, the Government introduced tax breaks in 1997 and a new definition of British film, making it much more attractive to film in the UK.
  That said, the British Tourist Authority and the British Film Commission have recently visited India to learn more about the Indian film industry, which produces about 900 films every year, and encourage the making of Indian productions here.

  Tourism (Millennium Projects)
  Mrs. Betty Williams: What assessment he has made of the impact of millennium projects on the tourism industry. [119876]
  The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): Evidence so far is encouraging: for example, Dynamic Earth in Edinburgh has already attracted more than 440,000 visitors, far exceeding expectations; the millennium stadium in Cardiff was the centrepiece of the Rugby world cup; and Tate Modern, which opens this week, has attracted enormous international interest. In addition, the huge number of new

  485
  environmental projects, such as the Sustrans millennium cycle way and the National Botanic Gardens of Wales, are proving attractive components of the BTA's latest marketing campaign, "Green Britain".
  Mrs. Williams: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. However, is he aware that £390,000 of Millennium Commission money has helped to fund the restoration of the Urdd Gobaith Cymru centre for young people in Glanllyn, Bala, which can cater for 9,000 young people every year? Although I welcome the news about the National Botanic Gardens of Wales and the millennium stadium in Cardiff, will my right hon. Friend tell the House how such major projects, which are so far away from tourist areas such as my constituency, can help us?
  Mr. Smith: I am aware of the vast number of smaller, local projects that the Millennium Commission has helped to fund in many parts of the country, including, I am pleased to say, in some parts of north Wales. The siting in Cardiff of the millennium stadium was a decision taken by the Welsh rugby authorities, not one imposed on them by the Millennium Commission, but it would have been difficult to understand if the site of Cardiff Arms Park had not been chosen to be the new national stadium of Wales. However, we need to ensure that north Wales, especially the tourist areas, benefit as much as possible, not only from Millennium Commission money, but from lottery money in general. Through the directions that we have issued to the lottery distributors, we shall ensure that that occurs.
  Miss Anne McIntosh: Will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating the Herriot museum in Thirsk on being nominated for a tourism award? Will he support attempts to attract as much millennium funding as possible for tourism projects that are sited outside capital cities, such as London or Cardiff?
  Mr. Smith: I join the hon. Lady in congratulating the museum on its award. Many of the millennium projects that are being supported are located outside capital cities. There are 14 or 15 landmark projects, receiving many millions of pounds from the Millennium Commission; they are not located exclusively in London, Cardiff, Edinburgh or Belfast—although each of those cities contains major millennium projects—but are spread around the country, and I am pleased about that.
  Mr. Syd Rapson: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on having a first-class team around him? I am grateful for the recent visit made by my hon. Friend the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting to Portsmouth to see our magnificent Gunwharf scheme, which will regenerate the economy and create more than 3,000 jobs. Although we have not yet got a tower built, we hope that my right hon. Friend will do all he can to assist us. I also hope that I will be joined by the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) in promoting the city, not denigrating it, as he has done on many occasions.
  Mr. Smith: The millennium project in Portsmouth is an excellent one: much of it is already under way and is beginning to show fruit. The Portsmouth scheme would
  486
  have been a perfect example to cite in connection with the question asked by the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh): it is located, not in a capital city, but in a major city that can benefit from its regenerative effect. I look forward to the tower taking its place in the scheme, and we all hope that that will happen.

  Millennium Dome
  Miss Julie Kirkbride: How many visitors there have been to the millennium dome to date; and by how many the visitor numbers have varied from the original estimates. [119877]
  The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Janet Anderson): As the hon. Lady knows, the New Millennium Experience Company produced a revised annual target of 10 million, following reassessment of the business plan in late 1999-early 2000. Actual attendance achieved to date is 2.1 million.
  Miss Kirkbride: The Minister's answer shows how difficult it is for Ministers to put a new Labour spin on the disappointing number of visitors that the millennium dome has attracted, despite the £750,000 million that has been spent on the project. As she knows, the industry's estimates are that the dome will attract only between 6 million and 7 million visitors this year, yet the business plan projects 10 million. How will those people be attracted to the dome? Can the Minister guarantee those figures by the end of the year?
  Janet Anderson: As the hon. Lady may recall, the project was started by her party when it was in government. However, I do not share her scepticism. The dome received its two millionth visitor on 28 April, and by June it is expected to beat the 1999 visitor attendance record for all UK paying attractions. That means that the dome is the most popular tourist attraction in the country, and we are very proud of it.
  Dr. Brian Iddon: I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister is aware that our town, Bolton, is visiting the dome in force this Thursday, and that she is welcome to join us. Is it not important that the children and people of Bolton visit the dome, to see the superb steel superstructure that originated in that town, and one of the largest turntables ever manufactured in this country, which is being used in the dome? Has my hon. Friend calculated the impact that the building of the dome has had on local economies, such as that of Bolton? I mention as an example the fact that the children and parents will have to be transported to the dome.
  Janet Anderson: My hon. Friend is right. The investment in the millennium dome has a huge halo effect right round the country. I believe that the steel that was used in the construction of the dome came from my hon. Friend's constituency—from Watson Steel of Bolton. I am glad that he is taking an interest and supporting the dome, and I am sure that his constituents will have as good a day in the dome on their town day as I did when

  487
  I was at the dome on bank holiday Monday. I wonder how many Opposition Members have taken the trouble to visit the dome to give it their support.
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth: No amount of spin can hide the fact that the dome is an embarrassing fiasco. Bearing in mind that it is already £100 million over its published budget, what guarantee can the Minister give the House that the dome will not need further money in the future? If and when another bid for cash is made, will she have a word with her right hon. Friend the Secretary of State? We need to establish what role he will be playing—will he be the chairman of the Millennium Commission, custodian of lottery players' money, or will he be in the role of Labour Minister desperate for political reasons alone to keep the dome afloat?
  Janet Anderson: I am very sorry that the hon. Gentleman should use the House once again to denigrate the dome. He refers to it as an embarrassing fiasco. On the one hand, he pretends to support it, and on the other, he uses such language. He knows that every application to the commission for an increase in grant is considered on its merits, according to the commission's policy and criteria. The management of any project that has applied for an increase in grant will tell him that it is not an easy process.
  I remind the House that in response to an application from NMEC—the New Millennium Experience Company—in early February, the commission agreed to provide a further grant of up to £60 million to assist the company with its cashflow requirements, subject to detailed appraisals and to the company demonstrating to the commission's satisfaction the need for those funds. To date, £55 million has been released by the commission, following such appraisals. Grant made to NMEC is subject to repayment from any operational surplus or asset disposal achieved.
  Mr. Bill Rammell: Does my hon. Friend the Minister recall that in the weeks preceding the general election, the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), who was then Deputy Prime Minister, begged and beseeched the Labour party to commit itself to the millennium dome—a project that the Conservative party had initiated? Does not that put into perspective the tosh and brazen opportunism that the Conservative party employs on the issue? Instead of willing the dome to fail, Conservative Members should highlight the fact that 80 per cent. of those who visit it believe that it constitutes an extremely good day out. Having been to the dome, I can vouch for that.
  Janet Anderson: My hon. Friend is right; 84 per cent. of people have been satisfied with their visit and 70 per cent. believe that the dome is good value for money. I was there on bank holiday Monday, when almost 35,000 people visited. I saw a family whose daughter pleaded with her father to bring her back as soon as possible. That does not sound like failure. It is high time that Conservative Members got behind the national project and supported Great Britain plc.

  Football Task Force
  Mr. David Heath: What assessment he has made of the proposals to deal with marketing by professional sports clubs and national teams advanced by the football task force. [119879]
  The Minister for Sport (Kate Hoey): With my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, I am considering the football task force's report—both the majority and minority reports—on commercial issues, and I expect to announce the Government's response shortly.
  Mr. Heath: I declare an interest as the father of a soccer-mad nine-year-old. Cannot something be done about national clubs and bodies that change football strips every year and cynically exploit youngsters through overpriced replica strips? Is not it time to stop that rip-off?
  Kate Hoey: The hon. Gentleman is aware that the task force was much exercised about that issue, which is worrying for all parents and children. We hope that the football authorities and the clubs—especially premier league clubs—which are responsible for what can only be termed abuse, have learned from that. When we make our final decision, some of the task force's recommendations will help to ensure that such abuse cannot continue.
  Mr. Denis MacShane: I am sure that the Minister will join me, the House and my constituents in Rotherham in sending condolences to the family of Terry Coles, who lost his life so tragically at Rotherham this weekend. I was at the match, and what should have been a festival of football as both teams won promotion was overshadowed by a dreadful tragedy.
  Perhaps the Minister would care to reflect on three points. First, we need a swift inquiry. I hope that she will ask the Home Office to press the Police Complaints Authority to get on with the job quickly. Police horses had to come on to the pitch as hooligans from both sides ran on to disrupt the match. I was glad that the police were there. Policemen and women in Rotherham serve the community well.
  Secondly, will the Minister consider money in football, and ensure that some of it goes to poorer clubs at the bottom of the divisions to ensure that they can grant access to fans and thus prevent such a tragedy from happening again?
  Thirdly, will the Minister consider setting up an independent commission so that tense matches, where trouble is expected, can be moved to a neutral venue? No amount of passion about football justifies the loss of a single human life.
  Kate Hoey: I am sure that the House wishes to send condolences to Mr. Coles' family. It was a tragic incident. As my hon. Friend knows, the Police Complaints Authority is already investigating the events, and it would therefore not be right for me to make a statement on the matter at this stage.
  Mr. Nigel Evans: As someone who was born in Swansea and lived there for 33 years, I add my condolences to the family on their tragic loss.

  489
  Not long ago, the Football Association of Wales held an international for which it deliberately reduced the price of admission to encourage more families to attend. It was a tremendous success; the mood was markedly buoyant and there was little trouble. Could the Minister encourage the Football Association to reconsider its pricing policy to encourage more families to visit football stadiums throughout the country?
  Kate Hoey: The hon. Gentleman is right that the more we get young people, children and families into football grounds, the more it changes the atmosphere. Although I now refer to a different sport, I was impressed by the behaviour and the general family feel when I attended the rugby league final at Murrayfield recently. Football could learn from that example.

  Cricket
  Mr. James Clappison: What steps he is taking to promote the competitiveness of English cricket in international competitions. [119880]
  The Minister for Sport (Kate Hoey): Although I am not personally responsible for the results of the England cricket team, I am keen to promote its international competitiveness. I want to encourage more youngsters to play cricket and to have the opportunity to reach the top in sport. I am working closely with the England and Wales Cricket Board to ensure that that takes place.
  Mr. Clappison: Does the Minister agree that it is in the interests of the competitiveness and integrity of English cricket and that in the rest of the world for those involved in the game at every level to support Lord MacLaurin's efforts to get to the bottom of the various allegations of match fixing? Moreover, is not that in the interests of the cricket-supporting public, who pay good money to go to matches, and all the decent, honest cricketers who have done nothing to deserve having the finger of suspicion pointed at them?
  Kate Hoey: The hon. Gentleman is right. Clearly, anyone who cares about cricket and plays it or who is involved with any sport, cannot fail to be deeply concerned at the suggestions of match fixing in cricket. I welcome Lord MacLaurin's initiative to bring together the executive board of the International Cricket Council, which met recently on 2 and 3 May, and the recommendations that it has made. It is absolutely crucial to the future of cricket to ensure that the public have confidence in the results of future matches. I hope that the measures that the council and we in this country are taking, and will continue to take, will mean that people can be confident about those results.
  Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that if we have a great Lancashire team, we have a great England cricket team. We should emphasise that there are many clubs in villages and towns throughout Lancashire and some great cricketing leagues. What help and financial support can be given to ensure that the youngsters at those cricket clubs are successful?
  Kate Hoey: The board is well aware that, if it does not ensure that more youngsters become involved at an
  490
  early age, it is much more unlikely that we shall have talented cricketers playing at the top or for talented and competitive English teams. The board is providing more support and has ensured that some of the money that it received from the sale of television rights has filtered down to exactly the level to which my hon. Friend refers. We want that to be encouraged. Of course money is needed at the top so that our most talented cricketers can achieve world-class performance and we need a cricket academy—the board is working on that—but we must ensure that the money at the top reaches down to where is it really needed—the grass roots.

  Arts Organisations
  Mr. Steve McCabe: If he will ensure that arts organisations benefiting from public funds make unsold tickets available for use by schools. [119881]
  The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Alan Howarth): We are introducing a requirement that every arts organisation in receipt of public funds should have an access policy for young people that includes an element of free or concessionary tickets.
  Mr. McCabe: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. I welcome the increase in funding for the West Midland Arts Board from £6 million last year to nearly £11 million this year. Surely that increase and the new three-year funding deal can only make it easier for theatres and other arts organisations to extend access to all sections of the community. Will he consider requiring publicly funded organisations to make available unsold tickets to schools and youth groups?
  Mr. Howarth: I welcome what my hon. Friend says. Having met members of West Midland Arts Board on several occasions, I know how committed it is to ensuring that public funding should carry with it the right to better public access for the many, not just the few. On his specific recommendation, we would stop short of compulsion, but we certainly encourage arts and other supportive organisations to ensure that no tickets are wasted and that such opportunities are taken up.
  Mr. Robert Maclennan: Does the Minister accept that enlightened arts organisations would regard making available concessionary and free tickets as a sensible contribution not only to educational development, but to the building of their future audiences? Does he recognise that the possibilities for making such a move extend beyond publicly funded companies and bodies? Will he invite the regional arts consortiums, which he has been instrumental in establishing, to ask the education authorities and arts bodies in their areas to introduce schemes and to approach the individuals who could make a difference?
  Mr. Howarth: I appreciate the spirit of the right hon. Gentleman's question. Some admirable arts organisations already use imaginative means to ensure better access to the arts, especially for young people. We have ring-fenced £5 million for the Arts Council to use as a new audiences fund to pilot initiatives, and those that show particular promise will be the beginning of a further process.

  491
  The Sheffield theatre's "pay what you can" scheme is a marvellous example, and I pay tribute to Lord and Lady Hamlyn for their imaginative and remarkable generosity in enabling people who have never had the opportunity to go to the theatre to do so.
  The regional cultural consortia to which the right hon. Gentleman referred have this task in their sights, and in any case we are specifying it in the funding agreements that we are negotiating with arts organisations in receipt of public funds.
  Mr. Michael Fabricant: I support the general principle of what the Minister has said, but does he accept that allowing access to young people can sometimes be difficult for small theatres? I have in mind the Hill Ridware theatre, just north of Lichfield. It is a successful theatre, but has only 60 to 70 seats in a converted church. The Minister may be aware that it recently applied for a grant, but was refused because it could not allow access to young children under the specialist arrangements that he has spoken about. Could he advise the arts bodies and lottery councils concerned not to apply the rules in a fixed way, and to take account of size and of the practicality of such arrangements in a small theatre?
  Mr. Howarth: I do not know all the circumstances of the theatre in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, but the Arts Council and the regional arts boards that distribute money on behalf of the taxpayer need to adopt suitable, sensitive and flexible approaches to particular theatres.

  Spoliation Panel
  Mr. Andrew Dismore: If he will make a statement about the work of the spoliation panel. [119882]
  The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Alan Howarth): On Thursday 13 April, I was delighted to announce the membership and terms of reference of the spoliation advisory panel. For those who may be unfamiliar with the jargon, I should explain that the Government have set up the panel with the aim of providing an alternative to litigation, and to facilitate a just resolution of claims made for cultural objects that may have been looted in the Nazi era between 1933 and 1945. The Government are determined to set an example of how a civilised society should conduct itself in making possible redress for historic wrongs committed during the Nazi era, including the looting of cultural objects.
  Mr. Dismore: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer. Many of the claimants are now elderly and infirm, like Mr. Felix Davis, whose painting of Hampton Court is presently in the Tate gallery. I understand that there is not a great deal of dispute now between him and the Tate. Will the Minister use his best endeavours to ensure that the spoliation panel cracks on with its work to settle the claims as quickly as possible? If it turns out that its powers are not sufficiently strong, will he review them to see if they need to be strengthened?
  Mr. Howarth: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I appreciate my hon. Friend's sensitive and determined advocacy of this issue. The answer to the questions that he puts to me is yes.
  Mr. John Bercow: Further to the first report of the national museum directors conference, can the Minister tell the House how many cultural objects and works of art have so far been shown to be of unknown provenance? What representations has he or the spoliation panel already received about them? Can he give the House some idea about the speed with which properly completed applications can be processed, so that the works of art looted by the Nazis can be returned as soon as possible to their rightful owners?
  Mr. Howarth: The national museum directors conference has identified hundreds of cultural objects whose provenance in the Nazi era between 1933 and 1945 contains some element of uncertainty. However, it does not follow that they were all looted objects. Indeed, only one clear-cut claim has so far been made to a national collection, and that concerns the work to which my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) just referred—the Jan Griffier painting "View of Hampton Court Palace", which is in the Tate.
  I can give the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) my absolute assurance- that we are encouraging the spoliation advisory panel to act as rapidly as it can in examining the principles that ought to apply, and the specific rights and wrongs of the case that has been referred to it.

  Wembley Stadium
  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: If he will make a statement on the future of Wembley stadium. [119883]
  The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): The new Wembley stadium will be one of the finest football and rugby stadiums in the world. I look forward to its being the centrepiece of England's staging of the 2006 world cup.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: Does the Secretary of State agree that the whole Wembley redevelopment scheme has been subject to dither and delay? That is shown not least by a report in The Daily Telegraph last Saturday that his officials were desperately negotiating with Brent council on who was to pay the £13 million redistribution and transport link costs. Will he now step in personally and take charge of the whole project to clear up the mess, so that our bid to host the world cup in 2006 is not prejudiced?
  Mr. Smith: I refer the hon. Gentleman to a statement issued last Friday by the leader of Brent council, Paul Daisley, who said:
  Following detailed discussions with all the key parties involved with the development of the new stadium at Wembley, I am increasingly confident that my officers will soon be in a position to prepare a report for our planning committee which recommends approval for the stadium planning application.
  Mr. Barry Gardiner: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Councillor Daisley

  493
  and the officers of Brent council? They have trodden an extremely careful path in ensuring not only that the stadium development will go ahead as we all wish, but that the relevant section 106 moneys for the regeneration of the local area, and for the provision of a safe transport infrastructure for fans, will be provided. As my right hon. Friend has just said, that seems set to happen: planning permission will be given on the 15th. Will he join me in congratulating all who have worked so hard for so long to ensure that it does happen?
  Mr. Smith: I do indeed join my hon. Friend in congratulating, in particular, Councillor Daisley and the team at Brent.
  In all such cases there is, of course, a difficult negotiation to be undertaken between developers and local authorities rightly seeking planning gain. In this instance, the details have been very important, but what Brent has sought to achieve—rightly and understandably, in my view—is not only the development of a new stadium, but proper regeneration of the surrounding area and a good transport infrastructure so that people can travel to and from the stadium.
  Mr. Bob Russell: Does the Secretary of State agree that Wembley stadium is arguably the most famous soccer stadium in the world, and certainly the venue for this country's greatest sporting achievement? Can he assure us that once the vandalism has taken place and the new stadium has been erected, football supporters will not be sitting in their coaches two hours after the final whistle, as happened after the Worthington cup final?
  What about the infrastructure? There is no guarantee that the new Wembley will be any better than the old Wembley when it comes to getting there and back.
  Mr. Smith: The whole point of the discussions that have been under way during the past few months between Brent and Wembley stadium is to ensure that such an eventuality is avoided. I have every confidence that the new Wembley will be even better than the old.
  Mr. David Hinchliffe: A few moments ago, the Minister for Sport referred to the success of the rugby league cup final held at Murrayfield a couple of weeks ago. That final is, of course, normally held at Wembley. Will my right hon. Friend urge the Wembley authorities to reflect on the success of that match, away from Wembley? In recent years, many rugby league supporters have felt exploited by Wembley, by the south of England and by London. By contrast, they were made very welcome in Edinburgh and elsewhere in Scotland. The efforts that were made to ensure that a match could be played, although the pitch was 3 ft under water only two days before the final, were remarkable—but most remarkable of all was the fact that the match was played on a rugby union ground. A couple of years ago, that would have been unheard of.
  Mr. Smith: The decision on the location of the rugby league cup final is entirely for the rugby league authorities. I hope that they will not ignore the prospect
  494
  of coming, at least from time to time, to the new Wembley stadium once it is constructed, because I enjoyed a rugby league cup final at Wembley very much.
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth: I hope that the general rejoicing is not premature. On 2 May, in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), the Minister for Sport admitted that Ministers had been aware of Brent council's concerns over infrastructure
  for more than two years.
  She also admitted that, astonishingly, no one from her Department had bothered to discuss those problems with either Transport or Environment Ministers. She said that they were a matter for the Wembley task force, so what has the task force been doing? I quote her again:
  No recommendations, views or proposals have been submitted by the Task Force to the Department.—[Official Report, 2 May 2000; Vol. 349, c. 17-18W.]
  I know that Wembley has become a byword for ministerial incompetence, but is it not breathtaking that for more than two years, the Government did nothing to address the problems that have, to this day, threatened the very survival of that national project? Is that their idea of supporting Great Britain plc?
  Mr. Smith: I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman, who was, I understand, a parliamentary private secretary in the previous Government. He does not understand the basic principle that Ministers in a Department cannot and should not intervene in planning decisions that may fall to the Deputy Prime Minister, as Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, to determine in his semi-judicial capacity. That is the reason for the answer that my hon. Friend the Minister for Sport gave.

  Tourism
  Mr. Nigel Waterson: What proposals he has to assist English tourist resorts. [119884]
  The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Janet Anderson): Many resorts have been included in the UK's proposals for the new objective 2 structural funds and assisted areas map. In addition, the English Tourism Council has set up a resorts task force, which is due to report in December with a programme of action to assist resorts with their regeneration strategies.
  Mr. Waterson: Is not it the case that all the Government have done for English seaside resorts is to cut their grants and swamp them with red tape, and to abolish the English Tourist Board? Does that not in large measure explain why only last Thursday, in places as different as Torbay, Plymouth, Great Yarmouth, Blackpool, Southend—and, indeed, Eastbourne—the Government and their Liberal Democrat lackeys were resoundingly rejected?
  Janet Anderson: I urge the hon. Gentleman to take the advice of the Conservative leader of the new ruling group in Rossendale, who said that there may have been one or two switches on Thursday, but not enough to make a difference at the general election.

  495
  In direct response to the hon. Gentleman's question, I remind him that it is the present Government who have taken steps to help seaside resorts, through single regeneration budget funding, through objective 2 and through the assisted areas map. I believe that this is the first time that any Government have given such priority to resorts; it is no wonder that so many of them are now represented by Labour Members.
  Mr. Lawrie Quinn: Does my hon. Friend agree that if there is to be a real renaissance in seaside resorts throughout the country, building on the Government's extra help for those resorts, we need an urgent review of transportation corridors to places such as Scarborough—for example, the A64? What representations has she been able to make to Ministers at the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions on that subject?
  Janet Anderson: My hon. Friend will recall that on 1 March my Department held a tourism summit with Ministers from Departments throughout the Government—the first time that such a meeting had ever taken place. It was intended to ensure that tourism was put at the heart of government, and my hon. Friend's point is exactly the sort of issue that we raised with the DETR. We look forward to further discussions with that Department.
  Mr. Ian Bruce: At the weekend I was fortunate to have with me a group of Russian parliamentarians, who came to see our tourism product, but also had the chance of seeing our local elections. They were of course delighted with tourism in Dorset, but were somewhat surprised by the Labour party's near annihilation in the local elections. Could the reason for Labour's election performance be that the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions has not been providing for places such as Weymouth, Portland and Purbeck grants to encourage tourism, which I know that the Minister supports? Will she please talk urgently to Environment Ministers to ensure that grant to encourage tourism is provided to local authorities—so that, for example, public toilets can be kept open?
  Janet Anderson: As I said to the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson), this Government have done a great deal more than any previous Government to promote tourism. I hope that the hon. Gentleman's Russian friends enjoyed their visit to the United Kingdom. They will find that, increasingly, the United Kingdom has a quality tourism product that offers people value for money. No wonder so many people want to visit this country.

  The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—

  Hunting With Hounds
  Mr. Gordon Prentice: If hunting with hounds is allowed on Church-owned land; and if he will make a statement. [119902]
  Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): The Commissioners' long-standing policy is that we allow our tenants to decide for themselves whether to allow hunts on the land which they rent from us.
  Mr. Prentice: That is a very disappointing reply. Why does the Church sit on the fence on this very controversial issue? The Church of England is this country's third largest landowner, yet it prevaricates. Is the Church really neutral on the issue of killing for fun? Is it okay to kill for fun?
  Mr. Bell: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his questions. The Commissioners recognise that, both inside the Church and out, there are widely varying and strongly held views on the subject, and that all of those deserve the Commissioners' respect. However, we have existing tenancies that may not be altered unilaterally. Although it may be possible to make provisions on the matter in new tenancies, enforcement of a ban on hunting would be difficult and could undermine our relationships with tenants.
  Miss Anne McIntosh: Can the hon. Gentleman confirm that the Church Commissioners, on behalf of their tenants, have given evidence to the Burns committee on the continuation and beneficial effects on the countryside of hunting?
  Mr. Bell: I cannot now give that confirmation to the hon. Lady, but I should be happy to look the matter up and send her a written reply.

  The Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission was asked—

  Government Resources and Accounts Bill
  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: What assessment he has made of the effect of the implementation of the Government Resources and Accounts Bill on the work of the Commission. [119903]
  Mr. John Bercow: What assessment he has made of the effect of the Government Resources and Accounts Bill on the work of the National Audit Office. [119904]
  Mr. Robert Sheldon (Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission): The Public Accounts Commission is responsible for examining the annual estimates of the National Audit Office. The Commission has considered the growing work load of the office, and has approved an additional £1.3 million for 2000–01. That is partly to cover introduction of resource accounting, as set out in the Government Resources and Accounts Bill. The Bill places on the Comptroller and Auditor General a duty to audit and account for the whole of the Government. As the legislation is not expected to come into force until 2005, it is too early to say what its resource implications will be.

  497
  With the Public Accounts Committee, I have made it clear that the Bill requires improvements in relation to the scrutiny of public spending. The improvements dealing with the CAG's access and the audit of executive non-departmental public bodies would involve no net cost increase.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that detailed reply. Does he agree that it is essential that after enactment of the Government Resources and Accounts Bill, parliamentary scrutiny of the money supply and our auditing process will be at least as good as, if not better than, they are now? Does he therefore share my concern that, by the deadline at the end of last year, only 14 of 53 Government accounts were available for audit? Will he ensure, via the Public Accounts Commission, that all possible resources necessary to ensure an orderly transition are granted?
  Mr. Sheldon: Of course I agree with the hon. Gentleman. It is important that the Bill be improved in several ways, particularly in providing the same rights of access to public spending as the Government have with their own Departments. The CAG should validate the new departmental performance estimates as well. The hon. Gentleman's work for the Public Accounts Committee and the commission is, therefore, well supported generally.
  Mr. Bercow: I welcome the fact that all 19 non-departmental public bodies established since 1997 are to be audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General, but does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it remains wholly unsatisfactory that just under 60 public bodies, spending approximately £2 billion of taxpayers' money, are not so audited? Does he agree that the CAG should have access to, and the opportunity to audit, all such bodies, as in Scotland, and that the proposed amendments to the Government Resources and Accounts Bill would facilitate the speedy achievement of that important objective?
  Mr. Sheldon: Obviously, I fully agree with the hon. Gentleman. This is a matter for the House of Commons, which must understand that the CAG and the National Audit Office produce their accounts on behalf of Parliament as a whole. Members of Parliament should support the work of the commission and the Public Accounts Committee in ensuring that there is proper accountability in the Bill.
  Mr. David Rendel: In what year does the right hon. Gentleman expect funding for the National Audit Office to increase to take into consideration the whole of the Government accounts, and how much does he expect the increase to be?
  Mr. Sheldon: As we are talking about 2005, it is too early to say. There should be no increase in the cost of auditing the accounts, because they are handled in different ways and there will be an adjustment to ensure that the cost is roughly comparable. For further assessments, we will have to wait for further definitions of what will be involved in 2005 and thereafter.

  The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—

  Redundant Churches
  Mr. Owen Paterson: If he will make a statement on the conditions relating to the disposal of redundant churches. [119905]
  Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): The Commissioners normally impose covenants on a new owner restricting the use of the property to that approved and prohibiting unauthorised architectural changes, the disturbance of any human remains or memorials, and demolition.
  Mr. Paterson: Is the Church under any moral obligation to sell a redundant church to the existing congregation, should they wish to buy it?
  Mr. Bell: The policy of the Church in relation to redundant churches is well known under the pastoral measure. The Commissioners' approval is required for any purchase of a church. Any change of use would also be a matter for the Church.
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, especially in London, many redundant churches are sold and become unavailable to the community? They are often sold to property developers and end up as luxury housing, and any conditions that may have been imposed by the Church Commissioners are not adhered to. Will he ask the Commissioners to ensure that redundant churches that are to be put to religious or community use remain accessible to the community as a whole, and that those that are to be used for housing become affordable, accessible housing, which will end some of the problems of housing inequality in London?
  Mr. Bell: Any proposal for a change of use from that already agreed with the Church Commissioners would have to be approved by the Commissioners and would be judged on its merits, but with particular regard to its suitability. About 880 churches have been appropriated for other uses. If my hon. Friend is thinking of a specific church, I would be glad to take up the case on his behalf.

  Charitable Giving
  Sir Sydney Chapman: To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, what assessment the Commissioners have made on the impact on Church income of the new charitable giving arrangements. [119906]
  Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): If half the money currently given in a non-tax-efficient way were given by gift aid, the Church of England might hope to recover about

  499
  another £20 million in tax in the current tax year. Our working assumption is that the new arrangements will take three years to take full effect.
  Sir Sydney Chapman: I hope that the arrangements will be speeded up and that more income will come into the Church as a result of the new charitable giving initiatives. How does the hon. Gentleman envisage that he and his fellow Commissioners will be able to help churches with their running costs in the longer term?
  Mr. Bell: At present, the Commissioners retain a substantial and rising liability for pensions, because of clergy who were in service before 1998. Pensions for service from 1998 onwards are being paid from the new clergy pensions scheme, so over the period 1998 to 2003 parishes are taking on the cost of pension contributions to
  500
  that scheme, with transitional help from the Commissioners. By 2003, when parishes are paying pension contributions in full, we expect that giving and fundraising will constitute two thirds of the Church's income.
  Mr. Peter L. Pike: I am sure that the Church Commissioners welcome the changes that were made to enable Church income to be boosted in that way. What steps are being taken to ensure that people understand how they can benefit from those changes, so that Church income is maximised as speedily as possible?
  Mr. Bell: We wish to communicate with the parishes, with parish churches and with parishioners to let them know what the Church is doing, what form the giving should take, and how that might assist the Church in its finances and administration.

Northern Ireland
3.30 pm
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Mandelson): With permission, Madam Speaker, I shall make a statement about recent developments in Northern Ireland, and the declaration issued over the weekend by the Provisional IRA.
On 11 February, I took the decision to suspend the political institutions which had been established barely 10 weeks earlier under the Good Friday agreement. I did so reluctantly, for reasons with which the House is familiar. If I had not done so, there would not only have been a collapse of the institutions, but a total collapse of confidence within Unionism, from which the political process would not have been able to recover for a very long time.
From that moment in February, we and the Irish Government have worked closely, at all levels, to restore the situation. As at so many crucial points in the past, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Irish Taoiseach have committed time and energy on a scale that must be unprecedented for busy Heads of Government. I have kept in close touch with the Irish Foreign Minister. There have been intensive discussions with the parties, in the most constructive atmosphere. I would like to thank officials in both Governments whose efforts have been tireless.
Our aim has been to achieve the clarity about the IRA's intentions which was noticeably lacking in February; by doing so to rebuild Unionist confidence; and thereby to re-establish the institutions. This could not be done quickly. Suspension was a bruising experience for all concerned. Unionists were disappointed that expectations raised during Senator Mitchell's review were not fulfilled. Republicans, and indeed many nationalists, saw great symbolic significance in a British Secretary of State acting to suspend local institutions as I did. People of good will on all sides were saddened that arrangements which had promised so much had proved impossible to sustain.
If Unionists need the confidence that the IRA are genuinely committed to the path of peace and willing to put their arms beyond use, republicans for their part need to know that the vision which the agreement offers, of a just and equal society in which both traditions are respected, will actually be realised.
We and the Irish Government therefore drew up an account of the remaining steps necessary to secure the full implementation of the agreement. Details were communicated to the parties on Saturday morning and I am placing a copy in the Library. The two Governments believe that those steps can be achieved by June 2001. In a statement published on Friday evening, we have committed ourselves to that goal.
The two Governments also called on the paramilitaries to state clearly and urgently that they will put their arms beyond use. For our part, we, the British Government, indicated that such statements would constitute a clear reduction in the security threat. In response, subject to assessment of the threat at the time, further substantial measures to normalise security arrangements will be taken by June 2001.
I am not yet able to say what initial measures will be taken. The Chief Constable is considering, in consultation with the Army, the situation in the light of the IRA
502
statement, with a view to what might be done now, and then in the period ahead if and when the threat diminishes. I assure the House though, as I have done before, that the security of the public will continue to be my highest priority. There is no question of trading essential security interests for political progress. But equally there is no doubt that the statements of the kind I have described impact positively on the assessment of the security threat.
As the House will know, the IRA made such a statement on Saturday afternoon. In the context of the Governments' implementing what they have agreed, the IRA committed itself to
a process that will completely and verifiably put arms beyond use.
Not "maybe", not "might", but "will". The IRA statement went on:
We will do it in such a way as to avoid risk to the public and misappropriation by others and ensure maximum confidence.
In the same context, the IRA committed itself to
pursue our political objectives by peaceful means.
The statement further committed the IRA to resume contact with the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning, under General John de Chastelain. It noted that the IRA's arms are "silent and secure", and that there is no threat to the peace process from the IRA.
In addition, the statement committed the IRA to putting in place within weeks a confidence-building measure to confirm that its weapons remain secure. Independent inspectors will scrutinise a number of arms dumps and report to the de Chastelain commission. It will be an on-going process, with regular reinspections of those dumps.
It is important that we now hear, in similar terms, from the main loyalist organisations.
Since the IRA made its statement, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach have announced that Mr. Martti Ahtisaari, the former President of Finland, and Mr. Cyril Ramaphosa, the former Secretary General of the African National Congress and now a prominent business man in South Africa—both of them widely respected international figures—have agreed to head the inspections. I am pleased to be able to announce that they will pay their first visit to Belfast next Monday, and I am grateful to them for their speedy response at such short notice.
I regard the IRA statement as a very significant development. For the first time, there is a commitment to put weapons completely and verifiably beyond use, in a context that is realistic rather than simply aspirational. There is a real prospect of actually achieving decommissioning: it is no longer a matter just of talking about it, or of setting conditions for it that make its realisation less likely.
There is a more clear-cut assurance of the IRA's peaceful intentions than we have ever heard before. As an earnest of those intentions, there is an unprecedented willingness to allow independent third parties to inspect arms dumps containing weapons, explosives and detonators and vouch for their continuing security. An essential element of the scheme is that the process should be continuous, to provide reassurance that dumps have not been tampered with, and that weapons have not been removed, between inspections.
The right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) has acknowledged the significance of the IRA statement, and the fact that it appears to break new ground. Not

503
surprisingly, he wishes to examine it carefully, and weigh its implications. That is entirely understandable. The right hon. Gentleman will also want to be confident, as I will, that, in moving forward with the agreement, the traditions and concerns of the Unionist people will be respected and dealt with sensitively, every bit as much as the traditions and concerns of nationalists.
I believe that all friends and supporters of responsible forward-looking Unionism will conclude that the proposals that I have outlined today, buttressed by the weekend's statement by the IRA, provide the conditions on which the right hon. Member for Upper Bann can lead his party back into government, confident that their long-standing and proper concerns have been addressed.
On the basis of such a positive response to these proposals, not only from the right hon. Gentleman's party but from all the pro-agreement parties, I can confirm to the House that I will bring forward the necessary order to restore the Northern Ireland Assembly and its Executive by 22 May.
In this event, I feel hopeful and confident that the ultimate prize—stable, inclusive government in Northern Ireland and an unbreakable peace—will at long last be within our grasp.
Mr. Andrew MacKay: In light of the developments in Northern Ireland over the weekend, I know that I speak for the whole House in saying to the Secretary of State that we are very grateful that at the first possible opportunity he has come to the Dispatch Box to make a statement. I endorse what the right hon. Gentleman has said—the statement issued by the Provisional IRA at lunchtime on Saturday is significant. It is worth recalling that never before have they said that they will put arms and explosives completely beyond use and have that verified. Naturally, we welcome this significant development.
The Secretary of State will not be surprised to know, however, that we have concerns, reservations and questions which I would like to put to him this afternoon. Those reservations are not least because we have all of us, the right hon. Gentleman included, had our fingers burned in the past. We thought that we had an understanding last November/December that if the right hon. Gentleman set up an Executive, within a matter of weeks the Provisional IRA would start decommissioning its illegally held arms and explosives. Sadly, the people of Northern Ireland were let down. That did not happen, and the Secretary of State had no choice but to suspend the Executive.
My first point is that we need guarantees that the arms and explosives will be permanently put beyond use. We note that the Provisional IRA is promising to bring forward confidence-building measures in the next few weeks that will give us and the people of Northern Ireland that assurance. Is there anything further that the Secretary of State can say today that will satisfy us on that point?
Secondly, we note that the Provisional IRA has said that several of its arms dumps will be available to the international inspectors. Clearly, the House wants all the arms dumps to be available. I would like confirmation of that from the Secretary of State. I would also like him to go a little further than he did in his statement about the
504
process by which the inspectors will be constantly monitoring what happens in the dumps. As he will appreciate, spasmodic visits from time to time will not regain the confidence of the people of Northern Ireland who have suffered so much from terrorism, both republican and loyalist, over the past 30 years.
The next point that needs raising is what sanctions the Secretary of State believes he has if his international inspectors tell him that the arms have been used or moved. Can he confirm that, if necessary, he is prepared to suspend the Executive again, if the Provisional IRA fails to fulfil its part of the bargain?
We note that the two Prime Ministers have drawn together a statement saying that they wish to normalise security in the Province. That is of course welcome, not least to people living in Northern Ireland. However, can the right hon. Gentleman go even further than he did in his statement and say that there will never be alterations in troop levels or other changes in security arrangements without full consultation with, and the consent of, the General Officer Commanding in Northern Ireland and also the Chief Constable? I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman appreciates that that is essential.
Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that, in supporting the Belfast agreement, the Provisional IRA clearly supported the fact that the agreement recognises beyond all doubt that Northern Ireland will remain part of the United Kingdom while the majority of people within it wish it to do so, and the fact that there will be absolutely no circumstances in which Northern Ireland will not remain part of the United Kingdom without the consent of the people of the Province?
Finally, will the Secretary of State accept that it is absolutely essential that the men of violence—republican or so-called loyalist—must fulfil their obligations under the Belfast agreement, just as the two Governments and democratic politicians, both Unionist and nationalist, have already done. The eyes of the world will be on them, and they will not be forgiven if they fail.
Mr. Mandelson: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his endorsement of my assessment of the IRA's weekend statement. That is the starting point and cornerstone of all the steps and further moves that I have described this afternoon.
The point at the heart of all the right hon. Gentleman's questions was whether we can trust the Provisional IRA, take it at its word and rely on that word. It has been said that IRA statements—even at their most unwelcome and bloody—have a sort of rugged honesty about them. That has been shown in the past, as my predecessor and previous Ministers could testify. While I firmly believe that we must always be on our guard and must always look ahead and test and evaluate statements rather than taking what people say at face value, my judgment is that, taken in the round and given the background of considerable efforts and difficulties from which the statement emerged, it can be relied upon. That does not mean to say that we should take anything for granted. I think that I have shown myself to be anything other than an easy touch for the republican movement in Northern Ireland, and I do not intend to become one now.
The right hon. Gentleman asked several specific questions. He must understand that the confidence-building measure is a first stage towards making arms safe

505
and secure. The next stage, which must follow—this is what the decommissioning process is all about—is for those arms to be completely and verifiably put beyond use. The confidence-building measure paves the way for that and builds up to it. The main process must follow, and the Provisional IRA now says that we have a political context and a backcloth of institutions that will function once more against which it can pursue the process of putting arms completely and verifiably beyond use.
I gather that there will be several substantial dumps of weaponry, explosives and detonators. Obviously, the inspection of those dumps is a matter for those whom we have nominated, and not for me. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that a robust and dependable process will be put in place in consultation with the inspectors, who will work closely alongside General de Chastelain's commission to make sure that monitoring and scrutiny are replete and adequate for the task.
The right hon. Gentleman asked several questions about sanctions and about what we should do if it all goes wrong. I have addressed those questions in the past, and I am not blind to them now. I can only say that I am not planning for failure, but if a further political crisis is sparked in circumstances that it is not possible for me to foresee, those responsible for that crisis will be clear for everyone to see. I shall of course, at the end of the day, always ensure the good government of Northern Ireland and will take any measures necessary to secure it.
As far as normalisation measures and security are concerned, I do not act except on the advice of the Chief Constable—primarily—who in turn consults the General Officer Commanding of the Army. That has always been the case and it always will be.
Finally, the whole point of the Good Friday agreement was to enshrine the principle of consent, and for the legitimacy of Northern Ireland's position in the United Kingdom to be recognised and respected while a majority in Northern Ireland wish it. That is the kernel of the Good Friday agreement, along with principles of fairness and parity of esteem. Those principles are robust and enduring. The measures and policies that we pursue will reflect those important principles at the heart of the Good Friday agreement.
Mr. David Trimble: The Secretary of State, in his statement itself, has acknowledged that we are being properly cautious in our approach to the developments of the weekend—in particular, the IRA statement. While it appears to break new ground, there are still matters that should be probed. Until we get sufficiently satisfactory answers on those and related matters, it would be premature to make a decision on this matter.
I think that the Secretary of State is also aware of our very firm view that the progress that there has been would not have been achieved but for suspension in February. Had there not been suspension in February, we would not have seen this happen. It was my own clear view that the evidence—of actions rather than words—clearly is that the republican movement only moves under pressure. That is a lesson that we hope has now been learned.
Like the Secretary of State, we take the view that the most significant part of the IRA statement is that passage in which they say they will initiate
a process that will completely and verifiably put arms beyond use.
506
I should like the Secretary of State to confirm that it is the Government's view that the process there referred to—the process that will completely put arms beyond use—is, in fact, decommissioning, and that it is decommissioning in consultation with the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning and decommissioning in accordance with the legislation and the schemes. In that context, will the Secretary of State expand on the reference in the statement issued by the Government on Friday evening in which they said that they were inviting the international commission to consider amendments to the schemes? Will the Secretary of State tell us what provisions he has in mind and whether they would involve any change to the basic principles set out in the legislation?
The Secretary of State also referred to confidence-building measures that the IRA said it would undertake within weeks. Can we have it again confirmed that it is the Government's view that those confidence-building measures are of a transitional nature; that they are not the end result itself, but a transition—part of a process leading to decommissioning in the proper sense?
The Secretary of State will also know that it is very much our desire that this process should succeed and that we should see devolution restored—provided that it is done on a sound basis—and that, irrespective of whatever decision he may make with regard to the restoration of devolution, my party will make its own decision as to what role it will play in future institutions: this party's decision will always be its own decision, and should it consider that, at any point in the future, there is a failure by republicans to carry out the process, it will act accordingly.
Finally, I underline the comments of the Secretary of State that, having heard from the republican movement, it is now essential that we hear from loyalist paramilitaries. We hope that they can—as they have done in the past—improve upon what the IRA has offered.
Mr. Mandelson: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman—not just for echoing my comments about the loyalist paramilitary organisations; I think that all Members of the House will join him in expressing that sentiment. Of course, I respect, have always respected and will always respect the position and the right of his party to consider what it believes it is necessary to do in the interests both of those who support his party and of society in Northern Ireland as a whole. I readily acknowledge that that is how he is motivated.
I do not want to dwell on the past or to return to the issue of suspension; that is far too painful. I think that the lessons that the right hon. Gentleman described have probably been learned by everyone. On holding people's feet to the fire, no one can touch him in that regard and everyone will have heard what he said about putting pressure on others. Although pressure is sometimes unwelcome, it is none the less frequently necessary to maintain it.
The right hon. Gentleman asked specifically about the confidence-building measure. Yes, it is a start not an end; it is the beginning of the process and stage 1. Further stages must follow. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I am not in the business of trying to announce deadlines at this stage as to when the process should finish. We have done that in the past and it got us precisely nowhere, so I am not going to try it again. None the less, the process must be on-going.

507
The right hon. Gentleman asked me specifically about the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997. The point that he referred to in the Government statement of Friday night was simply that, if anyone wishes to make fresh proposals for new decommissioning schemes that they think are preferable to those already on the table, both Governments will consider them urgently. The whole point of any such scheme would be to maximise the latitude open to the decommissioning body to fulfil its objectives—nothing more and nothing less.
I do not propose to introduce any amendments to the 1997 Act. It set out four options for decommissioning arms, but provided for more to be created if necessary. It also says that arms can be destroyed or made permanently inaccessible or permanently unusable, and that gives us enough breadth and scope for action to proceed without amending the legislation.
Mr. Harry Barnes: The statement is most welcome. My right hon. Friend will know that I supported him fully on the suspension of the Executive and I support him on its re-establishment now that circumstances are dramatically different. However, would it not help in putting arms, iron bars and other weapons beyond use if, over the next year, movement were made so that exiles are no longer kept out of Northern Ireland by paramilitaries, but are allowed to return home and feel that it is safe to do so because estates in certain areas are no longer run and dominated by paramilitary groups? If there are moves in that direction in the next year, we might have everything established fully by June 2001.
Mr. Mandelson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who touches on a good point that I referred to in a speech I made in Belfast this morning, before I came to the House. If ceasefires are to be worth anything and are to live up to their name, and if the term "peaceful means" is to mean what it says, paramilitary beatings, shootings and the rest of it must be out now, and once and for all if we are to build the decent civic society that we all want in Northern Ireland. That applies to the use of threats against exiles as well. All that has got to go and it has got to end; it must be part of the past 30 years of conflict that we are finally leaving behind us.
Mr. Lembit Öpik: Does the Secretary of State agree that the IRA's statement, and especially its willingness to re-establish contact with the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning, shows that those of us in the House who stuck by the process throughout without imposing extra conditions or seeking to do so probably did the right thing? Does he think, as I do, that the IRA's comment that
there is no threat to the peace process from the IRA,
while circumstantial, none the less represents a significant step forward in terms of the organisation' s willingness to participate in the process? In that context, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that he believes that the statements of the two Governments on human rights and equality of opportunity suggest that the whole process is on the move? That has to be welcomed.
I am interested in the Secretary of State's view on the June 2001 timetable. Will he confirm that he believes, as I do, that that timetable is more circumspect and
508
thought-out than the 22 May 2000 deadline, having been more fully debated by the people who can actually deliver the decommissioning result? We might therefore be more optimistic about June 2001.
Finally, does the Secretary of State concur that this is a real development, and one most definitely needed by the process? If seen through by all the parties in Northern Ireland—as I sincerely hope it will be—it should, by rights, enable the Secretary of State to re-establish something that we all want, and that is the governance of Northern Ireland by politicians in Northern Ireland by 22 May.
Mr. Mandelson: I am genuinely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the support and insight that he has brought to all our debates which are rooted in his upbringing and education in Northern Ireland.
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that people would have been better advised to stick by the process. Most have done so. However, over the weekend, one or two people tried to pour cold water over developments in Northern Ireland in the past 72 hours. I do not see many of them here this afternoon, so perhaps their cold water is becoming a little tepid and their scepticism is not borne out.
The Government will pursue all parts of the Good Friday agreement with vigour and enthusiasm over the coming year. Implementing all aspects of the agreement over the coming year will involve a tough, demanding and exacting timetable for us. That is the essential political context in which we can see further welcome moves in the process of decommissioning from the Provisional IRA. I certainly believe that what is happening now is only a start, but it is better to make a start than to worry so much about the finish that we never make a start in the first place.
Mr. John Major: Is the Secretary of State aware that the development justifies his decision in February to suspend the institutions, controversial though that might have been? Is he aware that it is welcome news if weapons are to be verifiably deactivated? If carried through fully, that development should lead to a lasting settlement.
In view of past disappointments, it is important that the House and Government are clear about what is on offer. Is it total or partial decommissioning? Does a substantial number of dumps mean all the dumps or something substantially less than all available weapons? When will active examination of the dumps begin and what does the Secretary of State hope will be concluded by the deadline of June 2001? Will he elaborate to the House on any price that he feels the IRA might attach to the offer? What does the IRA mean by full implementation of the Belfast agreement? If, as I suspect that it might, that involves further movement by the Government on security or other issues, is the Secretary of State aware that that deserves support, provided that such movement is synchronised with, and does not precede, the IRA's movement on beginning to put arms beyond use.
From the outset, this has been a long trail. There may yet be setbacks in a process of this nature. However, this weekend's statement has brought hope back to Belfast. I hope that past enmities and distrust will not disguise the opportunity that now seems to lie at hand.
Mr. Mandelson: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, whose words will be welcome across the

509
community in Northern Ireland, not least because no one knows more about that long trail, as he calls it, than he does.
May I first take up the right hon. Gentleman's final point about the price being paid? I am eternally vigilant about the price that has to be paid for such moves, and I am especially vigilant on the subject of security normalisation. There is absolutely no question that we shall do anything other than respond to changes and reductions in the security threat; we are not carrying out measures of security normalisation in order to procure political change. That is the important principle. As I said in my statement, I believe that it is possible for us to move ahead with some initial measures, and I know that the Chief Constable is currently considering those measures. However, what lies ahead and what further progress we make must rely on our assessment of the security threat as it develops and as it manifests itself on the ground at that moment. I hope that everyone has heard those three very important qualifications.
As for the confidence-building measures, it is important to distinguish between initial measures to make arms safe and secure, which the IRA says it will undertake, and the continuing, subsequent process of decommissioning—or, as the right hon. Gentleman says, deactivating. I think that it was he who first introduced the term "decommissioning", and he has now introduced a new term, "deactivating"; That is a rather smart and appropriate term to use, and I shall borrow it henceforward.
As for CBMs—the opening and verifying of the dumps—the two inspectors, Mr. Ahtisaari and Mr. Ramaphosa, will visit Belfast next Monday. All the technical detail has to wait until they come and we have that discussion with them. They will go through all that with General de Chastelain and his colleagues, in consultation with the Government, and I do not want to pre-empt or anticipate how they will do that. All I will say is that I know that Mr. Ahtisaari has considerable experience of these matters in the Balkans, most recently in Kosovo, and there have been similar situations with similar needs that have been addressed in the past; therefore, I do not think that it will be impossible for us to devise the precise arrangements and technical details that are needed.
As for what I hope we have achieved by June 2001—total, partial, on-the-way or two-thirds decommissioning—I really do not want to predict or speculate at this stage. All I know is that unless that process continues and it is enduring, reliable and robust, there will always be the danger of confidence running out of the political process, as it did previously. That is the last thing that we need and it would be a crying shame if it did occur. I hope and assume that everyone who has responsibility for making progress in these matters will do so, so that confidence is maintained, not only for the immediate future, but for always.
Mr. Kevin McNamara: My right hon. Friend will be aware of my pessimism following his decision to suspend the Executive. I am pleased to admit that my pessimism seems to have been confounded, and I wish to join in the congratulations to him, to both Governments and to the parties on the hard work that they have done that has enabled this weekend's statement to be made.
510
What is especially important is that all parties appear to have recognised that there was a ceasefire, not a victory or a defeat for either side; and that therefore there is now no ultimatum or fixed date. In the past, those hoops have been raised by various people from time to time, and people felt that the IRA had to jump through them. The fact that they no longer exist, coupled with the IRA's statement, gives great cause for hope.
I conclude by wishing the right hon. Members for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) courage and good heart during the very difficult negotiations that they will have with their own party.
Mr. Mandelson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has not only shown recent pessimism about the situation but has demonstrated a colossal commitment over many years to getting under way the peace process which we now see culminating, I hope, in success. My hon. Friend is right. If there were any connotations of surrender or defeat or other people being victorious, forget it—we would get absolutely nowhere. That is why we must be so careful about the language that we use and the tone that we adopt when we talk about these matters. All the time, whether Unionists are coming into the devolved institutions or paramilitary organisations are decommissioning, all those are voluntary acts. We are persuading people and creating the conditions and circumstances in which they will follow and go with each other along a virtuous path. That is why my hon. Friend's point is so valid. We are not asking people to jump through hoops. We are asking them to live up to their word and to others' expectations of them. That is what we must hope and assume will be the case in the months and years to come.
Mr. Peter Brooke: Since, of the 14 places where Robert the Bruce is said to have had his famous encounter with the spider, the BBC commends Rathlin island off the North Antrim coast, may I start by congratulating the Government on having followed Robert the Bruce's example? May I also ask the Secretary of State to clarify an aspect of the expansion of the international inspection? One of the new international inspectors shares nationality with a member of the de Chastelain commission, but the other does not. If the process of inspection is to be continuous, how does the Secretary of State envisage that the second international inspector will be able to carry out that inspection?
Mr. Mandelson: I do not think that the inspectors' respective nationalities will be such a relevant factor or a hindrance for either or both of them. However, the right hon. Gentleman touches on a good point about the relationship. Let me make this clear. We are asking the former President of Finland, who has considerable experience and current activity in relation to international crises and conflict resolution to carve out of his diary at very short notice a considerable commitment of time. I do not want to put him off by rehearsing in advance what the task will involve, but we are looking to those individuals to come and spend at least a couple of days at a time on each inspection that they undertake, which will continue for some time to come. Suffice it to say that I think they know what they are letting themselves in for—at least I hope they do, or rather I hope that they do not know too much of what

511
they are letting themselves in for. None the less, both are very committed, and they will be able to draw on the considerable expertise that has already been built up in General de Chastelain's commission from the three commissioners who work in that body. I have absolute confidence that they will be able to work well together, in the initial stages on the confidence-building measures, as the decommissioning body takes on the further responsibility for supervising the decommissioning process in the longer term.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. I should be obliged if I could now have brisk questions and answers. Many hon. Members are still standing, and there is another major statement to come before we get on to our main business.
Mr. Peter Temple-Morris: My right hon. Friend's statement is unreservedly welcome. Does he agree that the unprecedented IRA statement that we are discussing represents the best and possibly the last chance of delivering peace to Northern Ireland under the present peace process? Does he further agree that to oppose it without good cause is tantamount to opposing peace itself?
Mr. Mandelson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. I am tempted to say that we should not look a gift horse in the mouth. It is right to question the statement, to probe it and to see what is there behind the smile, but having done all that, which I do not hesitate to do, I hope that at the end of the day, people will embrace it for what it is. It may not yet be perfect in every respect, but for now, it is as good as it gets.
Sir Brian Mawhinney: Does the Secretary of State accept that all who have contributed to creating the environment that has allowed him to make this encouraging statement today should be commended? Given that many of us agree with his analysis that we need to build confidence and trust, does he recognise that that would be facilitated if the initial verification visits were regular—indeed, frequent—and the results of each published at the time?
Mr. Mandelson: The inspectors of the dumps are committed to doing whatever is needed to ensure that their remit is properly fulfilled. As for the reports of the de Chastelain decommissioning body, the Governments have given a commitment to publish them fully and promptly in future. I personally attach great importance to that.
Mrs. Maria Fyfe: Has my right hon. Friend noticed that, while the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) had the decency, good sense and honesty to remark that similar moves should be made by Unionist paramilitaries, no speaker from the official Opposition has referred to that aspect of the problem? Does he agree that it would be constructive if Opposition Members would refer to it?
Mr. Mandelson: My hon. Friend speaks of loyalist, not Unionist paramilitaries. I entirely endorse her sentiment,
512
but I believe that the comments to which she refers have been made by the Opposition. I have no doubt that the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) shares my desire for loyalist paramilitaries to follow up and reflect what the Provisional IRA said over the weekend.
Mr. John D. Taylor: We are discussing a statement not by Sinn Fein but by the IRA. That is a breakthrough in itself. However, there must be some clarification. For example, the IRA has said that it will put arms beyond use. That means that it could put 5 per cent. of its illegal arms beyond use and retain the other 95 per cent. of its arsenal to continue terrorism in the island of Ireland. Will there be some guarantee that all the illegal arms that are currently in the hands of the IRA will be brought under control in some way and that the process is on-going?
Much though we want the normalisation of policing and security, will the Secretary of State assure the people of Northern Ireland not only that the role of the Provisional IRA will be considered, but that the on-going threat from the Real IRA and the Continuity IRA will be a factor in making decisions?
The Belfast agreement placed an obligation on the Dublin Government to create a Human Rights Commission in accordance with the European convention on human rights. We have anxieties about the treatment of minorities in the Republic; that is why we got the requirement written into the Belfast agreement. Two years have passed; will the Secretary of State tell us when it will happen?
I commend the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister for their contribution to the on-going process.
Mr. Mandelson: I am glad to say that, in the joint statement, the Irish Government said that it would establish a Human Rights Commission and introduce legislation shortly.
On the dissidents to whom the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) correctly draws attention, I shall highlight another paragraph in the joint statement that the Governments issued on Friday. It is important to note that they pledged themselves to taking all and any effective measures necessary for dealing with continuing terrorist activity and threat from dissident paramilitary individuals and organisations. We shall step up our measures as well as our vigilance. It is important to do that in full co-operation with the security forces of the Irish Republic.
The right hon. Gentleman asked whether the IRA was talking about all or part of its arms. I have no hesitation in saying that our requirement and my expectation is that all the arms will be placed under the sort of control to which he referred. We are talking about "completely and verifiably": we are talking not about "somewhat", "sometime", "perhaps" or "if', but "will completely and verifiably". In the unlikely but theoretically possible circumstances of the Provisional IRA ceasefire being broken, its breach would be clear for all to see and judge. That would mean that it was impossible for the political representatives of the republican movement to remain active participants in the democratic institutions that we are creating.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: I was struck by the fact that the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) said that the IRA's statement is

513
a breakthrough. I welcome the early re-institution of the Executive and the Assembly, but, in relation to my right hon. Friend's comments on initial decisions on the security front, a fine confidence-building response would be to order the early demolition of the Barouki tower, known as the crow's nest, in Crossmaglen square. That ugly blot on the townscape serves no useful security purpose, which is a point that I have made to the Chief Constable himself.
Mr. Mandelson: My hon. Friend wrote to me recently, following his visit to South Armagh, about one or more of the installations which, in his opinion, are particularly intrusive. I have considered his comments and brought them to the attention of those who are responsible, but I must make it absolutely clear that I shall not go into the ins and outs of any particular arrangement or installation that exists in Northern Ireland, except to say that nothing will change—nothing will go down, nothing will go up—except on the clear, unequivocal advice and say-so of those who are responsible for advising me on such matters: primarily the Chief Constable, in consultation with the General Officer Commanding.
Mr. Andrew Hunter: Is not the Provisionals' position unchanged in at least two key respects? First, the full implementation of the Belfast agreement has only the potential to remove the causes of the conflict; full implementation itself will not remove those causes. Secondly, the IRA has still not unequivocally and unconditionally committed itself to decommissioning all its weapons.
Mr. Mandelson: If we trawled over a detailed, word-by-word analysis of all that the IRA has said, we would be here for the rest of the day, but we are not here to do that. These matters are very important, however. We have heard many such statements before. We have to look behind what is meant in addition to what is simply said. I am satisfied, given my examination of these matters, that what has been said has been said sincerely and without cynicism, but it remains to be seen whether what has been said will be borne out by deeds and actions. We should judge the IRA by deeds and actions rather than simply words.
Mr. Mike Gapes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the renewal of the process would not have been possible but for the excellent relationship between the British and Irish Governments and, especially, between our Prime Minister and Taoiseach Bertie Ahern? Will he emphasise in his future deliberations on such matters the continuing importance of the close relationship between the British and Irish Governments, especially on the provision of whatever necessary security, logistical or material support Mr. Ramaphosa and Mr. Ahtisaari will require to do their important work?
Mr. Mandelson: Yes. I have no hesitation in echoing what my hon. Friend says. The relationship is excellent. We would never have got anywhere—we certainly would not have got where we are today—without the relationship between the two Governments, the particularly close relationship between my right hon. Friend and the Taoiseach and the relationship between me and the Irish
514
Foreign Affairs Minister. It is a very honest relationship—[Interruption.] It is a very honest relationship, and no less robust and reliable for that. The Taoiseach and the Foreign Minister have made a tremendous, absolutely first-rate contribution, with their officials, to what has been achieved. Our continuing success certainly depends on that relationship remaining permanent.
Mr. Ken Maginnis: It seems a long time since I first stood at this Bench and talked about disarmament and verification of a process and the need to be reassured that the war is over. We have had numerous euphemisms in the interim, most of which have run into the sand because the nuts and bolts, the practicalities and the technicalities, have not been dealt with effectively.
Now that we are dealing with the real men of violence—the IRA—does the Secretary of State recognise that the Ulster Unionist party still has day-to-day responsibility for reassuring society in Northern Ireland? We do not want the invigilators to work in a detached way: we want contact with them from time to time, especially at the outset, so that they understand what is required from society's point of view.
Mr. Mandelson: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. I do not know how long we have the two of them in Belfast next Monday, but if it is possible for them to meet the main political representatives during their visit that would be very desirable. Of course the devil is in the detail in all these matters. Whatever other shortcomings and vices I have, not having an eye for detail and not being able to micro-manage things are not among them.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I thank the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister for the work that they have done and for the welcome statement that has been made today. My right hon. Friend says that he hopes the Assembly will reconvene on 22 May. Does there have to be a vote and debate in the House?
Although there is a statement from the IRA, my right hon. Friend hopes that there will also be one from the loyalist paramilitaries. If it is not forthcoming before 22 May, will he continue with the re-establishment of the Assembly, or will there be a delay because of the loyalist paramilitaries' inability to come up with a statement such as the IRA has made this weekend?
Mr. Mandelson: I hope very much that the loyalist paramilitaries follow up and echo what the Provisional IRA has said. That is terribly important if we are to build confidence right across the community in Northern Ireland. I am not in the business of making conditions about statements or about decommissioning in relation to the devolved institutions.
Mr. Corbyn: Good. I did not want my right hon. Friend to do that.
Mr. Mandelson: I thought for one minute that my hon. Friend was asking me to make that conditional, and to reintroduce a direct relationship between those two things. There will be an order and a debate before 22 May, and I have every expectation that the Executive of the Assembly will be going again on that date if we get the positive response from the parties that we are looking for.
Mr. Robert Jackson: Only the IRA knows the size and location of its arms holdings. Therefore,

515
decommissioning and the destruction of arms was always going to depend on the calculation of the IRA's interest and its good faith and trust, as the Secretary of State has said. Do not those two things apply equally to the current proposal for decommissioning by way of inspection of these weapons?
Mr. Mandelson: Yes is the answer to that, but this time we are doing more than merely travelling in hope. What the Provisional IRA has said is so direct and so clear-cut that it would lose a colossal amount if it were to resile in any way from the commitments that it has made. Of course I do not know the size and location of the IRA's weaponry. Although we can deactivate arms, we cannot decommission engineering knowledge and the ability to import or to remake arms should it wish to do so. That is why the motivation and the intention of the Provisional IRA and how that has been stated and described over the weekend is so important. Pursuing political objectives by peaceful means is the top and bottom line of that statement in this situation. That is the big picture, and we should not lose sight of it.
Mr. Steve McCabe: I welcome the Secretary of State's announcement about the institutions. Is this not the time for all genuinely peace-seeking politicians in Northern Ireland to commit themselves totally to the peace process, and is it not an opportunity for the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble)—for whom I have considerable respect—to make it clear to those around him who oppose the process that he is determined to go down in history as a peacemaker?
Mr. Mandelson: Since becoming Secretary of State, I have long since learned not to give the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) any lectures on how to manage his party. That would be completely beyond me, even if I desired to do it—and sometimes, perhaps, beyond the right hon. Gentleman as well.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman's party will reach the conclusion that we all want and pray for, but it must make that decision in its own way and in its own time. It is a large party, and an intensely democratic party. That is why, for now, I shall leave things in the capable hands of the Ulster Unionist Council.
Mr. Nicholas Soames: I give a cautious welcome to what is clearly improving news, but does the Secretary of State accept that there is a significant problem? The arms that the IRA says it will decommission will be, as it were, the institutional arms, which are all in one place. Many weapons will remain at large in the community, and under the control of the IRA. Will the right hon. Gentleman draw to the inspectors' attention the real need to deal with those weapons, as well as the weapons that will appear in the dumps?
Mr. Mandelson: That is not the responsibility of the inspectors, so, with respect, I shall not be drawing it to their attention.
These arms, right across the community, are not simply in the hands of the IRA; they are in the hands of many people and organisations. That is why, if we are to build
516
the decent, democratic civic society that we want to see in Northern Ireland—if we are to succeed in taking the gun out of Irish politics for ever—all those guns and all those people must be addressed, and all those people must be persuaded to deal with the matter.
I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Gentleman, but I think that this is something not so much for the inspectors as for General de Chastelain's commission to examine and tackle, and I shall urge it to do so.
Mr. John Wilkinson: Long before the right hon. Gentleman's star span into the political firmament, militant republicanism had shown its murderous capacity for mutation—from official IRA to Provisional IRA, and now from Provisional to Continuity and Real IRA. It will probably continue to mutate long after the right hon. Gentleman has, like some comet, gone into outer darkness. Given that weapons are kept in the barn, under the floorboards and in the house next door—if it is empty—is it not vital that no security arrangements be reduced until such time as, over the years, it has become perfectly plain that weapons are being taken out of society and not just being put on display for the benefit of visiting foreign inspectors?
Mr. Mandelson: I think the hon. Gentleman has introduced a rather cynical—unjustifiably cynical—note. I do not know whether I shall be in outer darkness, or in what part of the firmament I shall be, when we see these organisations, rather than continuing to mutate, fade away and wither on the vine for ever. That is what I want to see—an end to the mutating, and a start to the withering—but it will only happen in the context of politics working and being seen to work. That is why we have set out the proposals that we have set out; that is why we are constructing this backcloth of political change and development in front of which the decommissioning process can get under way—I hope thoroughly, and I hope faithfully.
I hope that we shall be able to come back at some time in the future, and demonstrate that the hon. Gentleman's scepticism was unfounded.
Mr. Eric Forth: The Assembly is to be reinstated this month, but the Secretary of State said, I thought very revealingly, that he did not know whether deactivation would have been completed even by June 2001. Can he therefore give any indication as to when he will judge whether the deactivation process has been a success and, in the light of that, what the status of the Assembly should be? Can he please tell us: will these now increasingly famous dumps be in Northern Ireland, in the Republic or in both?
Mr. Mandelson: I suspect, in direct answer to the right hon. Gentleman's last question, that the dumps will be in the south, rather than the north, but I cannot say that for sure or exclusively. However, that is what I suspect will be the case.
I am not plucking particular dates or standards, or particular points in time by which I will judge whether the process has been successful or not. It has to be continuous. We have continuously to keep all this under review, continuously to keep the pressure up, continuously to maintain the engagement between the paramilitary

517
organisations and the de Chastelain commission. There is absolutely no point in descending for a day in a month, looking around, asking what is going on and simply walking away and losing sight of what is happening between those times. That is not how I want people to behave. It would not be the best approach to take.
Madam Speaker: Thank you. The House is now ready to take the second statement.

Sierra Leone
4.36 pm
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): With permission, I shall make a statement on Sierra Leone. I regret that it is one of the gravest statements that I have had to make to the House.
Over the past week, Revolutionary United Front rebels have broken their commitment to the Lome peace agreement and have returned to conflict. They have made a number of attacks on the United Nations forces and on demobilisation camps. At least four Kenyan members of the UN forces have been killed in action. Around 500 United Nations personnel have been detained, including one British UN military observer.
At the weekend, the rebels appeared to be moving on Freetown. The situation in Freetown is tense. I spoke at midday to our high commissioner there, who reported that the police had been successful in arresting a number of rebel bands and had seized arms which they had been about to distribute.
Tens of thousands of residents of Freetown loyal to President Kabbah have today marched on the residence of the rebel leader, Foday Sankoh, which they have surrounded. From about 1 o'clock this afternoon, the sound of gunfire could be heard from that location. That development has serious implications for the security situation within Freetown and for the future actions of rebel forces commanded by Foday Sankoh.
Our first duty is to protect the lives of British citizens in Sierra Leone and of others for whom we have consular responsibility. We believe that there are up to 500 British nationals in Sierra Leone, mostly in the Freetown area. There is a smaller number of European Union nationals and Commonwealth nationals without diplomatic representation, for whom we have consular responsibility.
Our immediate advice to British residents in Freetown is to stay indoors. This afternoon, the high commission has activated its evacuation plan and is contacting British residents through the local warden network to give them the necessary instructions.
In view of the limited commercial opportunities to leave Sierra Leone and the current insecurity, we have taken the precautionary measure of deployment of a number of British military assets to West Africa. The forward elements of the current spearhead battalion, the 1st Battalion The Parachute Regiment arrived in Dakar, Senegal over the weekend. They are currently moving from Dakar to Freetown. In addition, HMS Ocean, support vessels with 42 Commando and a number of helicopters are moving towards the region and will be at Sierra Leone early next week. HMS Illustrious has been withdrawn from a NATO exercise to be available as needed.
Those measures have been taken to ensure that we are best placed to respond quickly to safeguard the security of British nationals. Our forces will ensure the security of the international Sierra Leone airport. Not only is that of immediate utility for the evacuation, but it is valuable in allowing the UN forces to continue to build up.
The UN force is currently about 3,000 short of its mandated strength of more than 11,000. We are urging the nations contributing to the UN force to expedite the

519
additional numbers. I spoke last night to Madeleine Albright, and I welcome the United States's offer to consider strategic airlift to fly in units from the Jordanian and Bangladeshi armies.
I have also spoken to Kofi Annan, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, and offered further logistical support, such as vehicles, for the UN force. I pressed upon him that one of the immediate lessons of the past few days is that nations contributing forces to the UN must also contribute the equipment necessary to fulfil the UN's mandate.
Responsibility for the current outbreak of violence lies squarely with the RUF rebels and their leader, Foday Sankoh. A year ago, he committed himself to a peace process that offered re-integration and retraining to his troops in exchange for demilitarisation. Considerable progress had been made on that process. UN forces had deployed across two thirds of the country. Almost half the armed groups had registered at demobilisation centres, and a significant quantity of weapons had been surrendered. Work had begun on training a new defence force for the legitimate Government of Sierra Leone, and on preparations for democratic elections next year. All that progress has been put at risk by the RUF reneging on commitments that it has made.
One of the triggers for the current conflict appears to have been the attempt by the UN forces to enter the diamond-producing region that is held by the RUF and provides it with weapons and friends. That development underlines the importance of the international debate, in which Britain has been a leading voice, for more transparent regulation of the trade in uncut diamonds. I shall be pressing at the forthcoming meeting of Group of Eight Foreign Ministers for an international system to certify that diamonds do not come from conflict areas. We should not allow diamonds to be sold for the price of weapons or at the cost of lives.
I want to make it clear to the House and to the people of Sierra Leone that Britain will not abandon its commitment to Sierra Leone. Britain has done more than any other country outside the region to restore legitimate government in Sierra Leone. We are the largest national donor to the peace process; we hosted the international donors conference earlier this year; and we are in the lead in training the new army for the Government of Sierra Leone.
We shall continue to take the lead at the UN and elsewhere to restore the peace process. We must not allow a few thousand rebels to prevent the end to violence, and the peace in which to get on with their lives for which 3 million people in Sierra Leone desperately hunger.
Mr. Francis Maude (Horsham): I thank the Foreign Secretary for making that statement. The whole House will be desperately concerned about the violence in Sierra Leone. No one could begin to excuse the conduct of a gang of thugs who have indulged in some of the most appalling acts of vicious brutality against civilians, including large numbers of young children.
With respect to the Foreign Secretary, it seems to most of us that it has not been only in the past week that the Lomé peace accord has broken down. Sadly, most of the Revolutionary United Front has never accepted that peace,
520
but continued with a loathsome campaign of killing and maiming. We all wish nothing but the best for the people of that unhappy country, who are being used as the playthings of some thoroughly nasty individuals.
The House's thoughts will particularly be with the British nationals who are still in Sierra Leone, including the Foreign Office personnel, and with their families at home who are bound to be concerned about their safety. We are especially concerned for the British service man attached to the United Nations forces who has been taken hostage by the RUF, and for his family at this anxious time.
We strongly support the decision to send the contingent of our armed services to Sierra Leone. We wish them good fortune in the tasks that may lie ahead of them.
Will the Foreign Secretary tell the House how many British nationals are still in the country, and whether they are able to leave without impediment? Where are they concentrated? He said that most of them seem to be in Freetown, but how far-flung are the rest? Do any of them seem to be trapped in areas held by the RUF? Is he satisfied that everything that can be done by the United Nations to free the British service man is being done? As I understand it, he was there under the aegis of the United Nations.
Given the evidence that Britain's armed forces are already stretched dangerously thin, will the Foreign Secretary make it categorically clear that the British contingent in Sierra Leone has one mandate, and one mandate only: to get the British nationals out? Will he assure the House that the sending of, effectively, three battalion strengths of the Parachute Regiment and Marines, as well as five ships—plus, we are now told, an aircraft carrier—is for that purpose only, and not part of a wider military commitment to shore up a United Nations operation that appears to be close to collapse?
The Foreign Secretary's remarks about securing the airport partially to enable the further build-up of UN forces will have rung some alarm bells. There would be no public support, I believe, for allowing British forces to be sucked into a civil war in Sierra Leone. What benchmarks and time limits have been set in place to ensure that the operation to evacuate British nationals does not gradually extend into a much wider mission?
Do any of the other countries with nationals still in Sierra Leone have plans to send forces to help with the evacuation? If so, will Britain take part in a joint evacuation operation?
It is at times like this, when British nationals abroad are in danger, that we have cause to be glad that our armed forces, in their courage and professionalism, are the envy of the world. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that such circumstances underline how important it is that our commitments should not outstretch our capabilities, and does he accept that the sorry tale of Sierra Leone shows that, with the best will in the world, there are limits to what the United Nations can do in attempting to keep a peace that has never been properly struck?
Mr. Cook: First, I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his support and I entirely echo what he said about the courage and professionalism of British troops. Once again, we have seen how fortunate we are in that respect. I also join in what he said about the family of the detained British officer. We understood at the weekend, when we

521
last heard, that he was alive, safe and well, but plainly nobody can relax until his release has been obtained. The United Nations has sent missions and has used intermediaries. We very much hope that that will be successful in securing the early release of all the UN detainees, and our own British officer in particular.
The right hon. Gentleman was quite right in describing the appalling brutality of the RUF and its members. They are particularly given to lopping off the limbs of those who do not subscribe to their view of society and the world: there are many young children in Sierra Leone who now have neither arm as a result of their actions. They have also indulged in systematic rape, and we know that some of the women who were captured for that are still kept in a condition of effective sexual slavery. It is also the case that they abduct children and force them into their operations. There are probably about 2,000 children at present being compelled to act as child soldiers with the RUF.
I entirely echo what the right hon. Gentleman said about the brutal, nasty nature of the RUF and the need to contain it, and that is why I invite him to reflect again on the language that he used about the UN operation. The message from the House should not be that we are about to accept the collapse of the UN operation or that, reading between the lines, we might be secretly gratified to see its collapse. We all want to work to make a success of that operation, and Britain will take every step that we can to do so.
I would have thought that it would be welcome to the House to hear that the presence of British forces will maintain the international airport for the supply of that UN force. We cannot simultaneously decry the brutal character of the RUF and be unwilling to establish a bridgehead for the UN to enter.
We will continue to review daily the mandate for the British force and the time scale for its remaining, and we will weigh the value of its presence against the security and safety of those who are in it.
We understand that the overwhelming majority of British nationals are in Freetown. We cannot be precise about numbers because we do not know how many people have voluntarily left in the past few days, given the deteriorating situation. Some are still further up country, particularly some who are working for non-governmental organisations outside Freetown. We hope that we will be able to make contact with them when possible and that they will be able to return to Freetown and take part in the evacuation.
No other European nation is operating an evacuation plan, but we are the only European nation with a diplomatic presence in Freetown. We accept our obligation in those circumstances to act on behalf of other European nations, as we would expect them to do if the situation were reversed.
Mr. Donald Anderson: This is a timely response to the continuing crisis in a friendly Commonwealth country. We know that many Commonwealth countries in southern Africa have committed manpower and materiel to help President Kabila in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. He has no democratic mandate. By contrast, President Kabbah in Sierra Leone does have a democratic mandate. Can we expect a similar response from Commonwealth countries
522
in southern Africa, following the clear promises that were made as a Commonwealth to President Kabbah at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Edinburgh in autumn 1997?
Mr. Cook: It is certainly true that several Commonwealth countries have a presence in the Congo, on both sides. In relation to Sierra Leone, no country could have done more than Nigeria has done in providing leadership. It has done so at considerable cost to the Nigerian armed forces, having lost around 1,000 men in fighting in Sierra Leone. Nigeria still has two battalions in Sierra Leone, which are now attached to the UN forces. We are in contact with Nigeria to see if it can in any way strengthen its contribution in the current circumstances.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: I offer my support for the action taken and for the stated objective. In particular, I associate myself with the Foreign Secretary's response with regard to the United Nations. It would be curious indeed if a permanent member of the Security Council of the United Nations were not willing to provide such assistance as he has just described.
The Foreign Secretary will accept that the mission may be no picnic—if he will forgive the colloquialism. The situation is deteriorating hourly. Is he able to say, perhaps after consultation with the Secretary of State for Defence, when HMS Illustrious will be available to provide air support, because there are circumstances in which that may become very important?
Is the Foreign Secretary familiar with the inelegant but illuminating American expression "mission creep"? It describes a situation in which troops deployed for one purpose slowly, under pressure of events and with the best intentions, find themselves drawn into operations for which they are not prepared, trained or equipped. Can we be satisfied that the Foreign Secretary and the Defence Secretary will keep a close eye on the operations to ensure that that does not occur?
It is an open secret that plans for evacuation from another country several thousand miles to the south of Sierra Leone have been drawn up in recent weeks. Can we be satisfied that if it comes to the point of evacuation in Zimbabwe—although we all hope that it does not—there will be sufficient resources to enable that to take place? Does not the evacuation from Sierra Leone point up the importance of conducting those events effectively and efficiently, as an example, to make it clear that if we have to carry out a similar mission in Zimbabwe, we will be well able to do so?
Mr. Cook: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for stressing our duties as a permanent member of the Security Council. It is plainly incumbent on us to do all that we can to assist the UN presence in Sierra Leone. HMS Illustrious is available now, in the sense that it has been detached from its present duties. If required, it could reach Sierra Leone in a matter of days.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked whether those troops being deployed have been trained for such a mission. The spearhead battalion is specifically on call as a rapid reaction force in the event of such an evacuation being required. It is prepared and trained for the task and will do its job professionally and competently.
I heard what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said about another country, but I hope that he will forgive me if I do not follow him down that path. Following

523
discussion of evacuation plans, threats are now being made to British nationals in Zimbabwe. The less that we encourage that, the better.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Rightly or wrongly, the Government have made a major, open-ended commitment. Does that commitment have the approval of Jerry Rawlings and the Government of Ghana?
Mr. Cook: I cannot say that we have consulted President Rawlings specifically on the statement that I have made, but Ghana has been very supportive of the efforts made by ECOWAS and ECOMOG to restore peace in Sierra Leone. It is a full supporter of the Lome agreement, and I have no reason to doubt that the Government of Ghana would associate themselves fully with many of the things that I have said about the RUF.
Sir Peter Emery: The right hon. Gentleman will know that the House is massively in favour of support for the democratic Government of Sierra Leone, and that it condemns absolutely the terrifying behaviour of the RUF. However, I hope that he will be kind enough to answer two questions. First, is not the lesson to be learned from this matter that, when an agreement such as the Lomé agreement is in doubt and United Nations troops are sent in, they must be armed sufficiently to cope with the type of situation that can arise? In Sierra Leone, for example, 500 such troops have been captured.
Secondly, what does the Foreign Secretary mean when he says that Britain will not abandon its commitment to Sierra Leone? That could be taken as a very wide statement, which might well mean that we would have to use British troops for some considerable time to sustain a peace structure in Sierra Leone. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman can give the House a little more detail of what his statement means, so that it is not misinterpreted.
Mr. Cook: I am happy to pick up the right hon. Gentleman's second point. As I said in my statement, Britain is the leading international country providing support for the peace process. We have put in more money than any other nation—[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman asks me to elaborate, and I am doing so. Britain has put in more bilateral aid than any other nation, and almost £70 million has been committed to the peace process over the past two years.
In military terms, we are in the lead when it comes to training an army for the Government of Sierra Leone. One of the tragedies for the country is that the Government have no army, as all the members of the former army deserted in 1997.
We are also providing 15 UN observers attached to the UN force, but we have no intention of providing combat troops for that force. I hope that I have reassured the right hon. Gentleman on that point.
I have much sympathy with the point that the right hon. Gentleman made about the lessons to be learned from this episode. When UN member states contribute forces to UN operations, it is imperative that they provide both the appropriate number of troops and all the equipment that
524
they need. It is the responsibility of contributor nations to decide what equipment and weapons troops should take to such operations.
The UN pays for such contributions. When I spoke to Kofi Annan at the weekend, I suggested that in future the UN should assess not only the quantity of troops that it pays for in such operations, but the quality of their support and discipline.
Mr. Kevin McNamara: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the city of Hull is twinned with Freetown? Over the past few decades, a close and continuing relationship has developed, and we have help to train local government personnel and others. The events that have unfolded over the past few weeks have caused much shock and horror, and aroused fears that terrible scenes of butchery might be seen again in Sierra Leone.
Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that British nationals and others for whom the Government have a responsibility will be protected and helped, and that a similar degree of protection will be extended to those citizens of Sierra Leone and of Freetown who have co-operated happily with the NGOs and others? Will he ensure that their co-operation will not cause them to be singled out as victims if the RUF should turn out to be successful?
Finally, I thank my right hon. Friend for his robust statement, and the robust riposte that he gave to the speech of the Opposition spokesman, the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude), which was one of the most disgraceful things that I have heard in the House for a long time.
Mr. Cook: I appreciate my hon. Friend's point about the hopes of the people of Sierra Leone, and those in Britain who are concerned about their welfare, being dashed. What has happened in the past week has been particularly cruel, given the enormous hope that was invested in the peace agreement a year ago. I remember, just about a year ago, speaking personally with President Kabbah after he had toured the country selling the details of the peace agreement. He told me of the joy, the elation and the relief of the people he addressed at the prospect of peace and an end to violence and repression by the RUF. We must not let that hope die—we must make sure that we restore the peace that was promised a year ago. We will do all we can to ensure that that peace is rebuilt and that the people of Sierra Leone have the right to enjoy the same stability and peace as any of us. However, I must be candid and honest about this—I cannot offer them the military protection that we are currently providing to secure the evacuation of our own nationals.
Mr. Andrew Robathan: Given the litany of the thousands of awful murders and mutilations that the Foreign Secretary referred to, does he accept that his foreign policy on Sierra Leone over the past three years has not been a success? Does he remember the Prime Minister's official spokesman saying two years ago that it did not really matter because the good guys won? Does he regret that? Does he regret not listening some two and a half years ago to the advice of Peter Penfold, when high commissioner? He was then supporting President Kabbah,

525
who wished to stage a coup—a counter coup—which might not have led to the terrible murders that we have seen in the past three years as a result?
Mr. Cook: The whole House will appreciate that the hon. Gentleman has uncorked the ancient vinegar. I think it regrettable that there is any Member of the House who cannot rise to the gravity of the situation faced by 500 British nationals and those UN forces engaged in the field.
The hon. Gentleman referred to President Kabbah staging a coup—rather curious, considering that he was elected by the people of Sierra Leone.
Mr. Robathan: Counter coup.
Mr. Cook: I think that "counter" came after the hon. Gentleman originally said that it was a coup. I presume that the hon. Gentleman was making a reference to Sandline. The liberation of Sierra Leone that occurred in 1998 had nothing whatever to do with Sandline, and everything to do with Nigerian troops, which took a large number of casualties in the process. The truth is that, in the present situation, mercenaries would be nothing but a menace.
Jane Griffiths: Does my hon. Friend agree that a way should be found for the wider international community, whether that be Commonwealth nations, inside or outside Africa, to assist further? Britain is doing a most commendable job in attempting to protect British nationals, but there is a much wider task to be done. Does he also agree that there must be scope for the international community to address the politics of diamonds, because the diamond trade has left a scar on Africa over the decades and the centuries?
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend makes two important points. If we are to contain the conflicts of Africa, it is important that Africa develops professionalism and competence in peacekeeping. I am pleased that Britain is playing an important role in this, given the number of military advisory training teams that we have in Africa, including a large one in Ghana, which I visited while calling upon President Rawlings. I am grateful to Ghana for its support in providing a centre for excellence in peacekeeping training.
I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend about diamonds. It is a great tragedy that the conflicts in Sierra Leone, and also in the Congo and Angola, have been fuelled by the attempts of various armed groups to obtain control of the diamonds fields. It is extremely difficult to control the flow of diamonds from such African countries, which have large borders and difficult terrain. However, the trade in uncut diamonds is relatively modest and concentrated, and it should not be beyond the wit of the international community to find a better way of regulating it.
Mr. Simon Hughes: The Sierra Leonean community in this country will be grateful to the Foreign Secretary for his statement and for his welcome support for the United Nations. Does he envisage taking any action, perhaps in New York, to ensure that the UN is strengthened in whatever ways it needs to see through its mission? In the
526
context of the Commonwealth, can he ensure that the guarantor powers are supported in trying to maintain the democratic regime, and that the Sankoh regime will be undermined and dealt with? Lastly, will he undertake that Sierra Leoneans who are his consular responsibility and are in the queue to come to the UK will be dealt with as quickly and humanely as possible, and that there is no repetition of occurrences in which people seeking properly to join family in the UK have had to leave Sierra Leone and go to other countries to wait in a long queue before they could be processed?
Mr. Cook: First, I am well aware of the hon. Gentleman's constituency interest. A large community of people from Sierra Leone is resident in Britain, and those people will closely watch what the Government do to assist in their home country.
In relation to the UN in New York, I have already approached Kofi Annan to discuss how we can help with the present operation. The immediate priority is to try to provide support and strengthening for the current operation to overcome the crisis. Questions may remain to be asked about the mandate and the terms of operation for the future, but the immediate priority must be to ensure that the operation has adequate strength.
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall deal with all British nationals and passport holders without distinction or discrimination, and shall seek to ensure that they are all evacuated safely.
Mr. Bruce George: I believe that most Members will applaud the Government's efforts in committing British forces. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on avoiding reciprocation of pathetic political point scoring. We ought to send out a message of consensus.
If a message is to be given to the butchers, the sending of the Royal Marines, the Parachute Regiment, HMS Ocean and an aircraft carrier with aircraft is a powerful one, and I hope that that will be appreciated. I shall enter into negotiations with the Secretary of State for Defence to invite him or the Minister of State to discuss deployment with the Select Committee on Defence.
Finally, illicit diamonds are normally associated with mercenaries. How high up the agenda is legislation or a White Paper on the exercise of a degree of control on that rather squalid, sordid industry?
Mr. Cook: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the dignity of his contribution. He is right to remind us all that this is a grave matter on which we should respond as a nation, not as partisans.
We promised a Green Paper on mercenaries in response to the Select Committee's report on Sierra Leone last year, and work is well developed. I hope that we may take it forward. I agree with my hon. Friend on the importance of diamonds.
My hon. Friend made an observation about hearing from a Minister at the Ministry of Defence. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence heard that observation, and I should not dream of interfering in those negotiations.
Mr. Bowen Wells: In view of the fact that the neighbouring country of Liberia supports the RUF and Mr. Sankoh, what approach has the Foreign

527
Secretary made to the leadership in Liberia for assistance in trying to bring about the resumption of a peaceful solution to the problems facing Sierra Leone?
Secondly, on diamonds, how far has the Foreign Office gone in its analysis of the situation, and in the actions that it tried to take through the UN and commercial trading operations—notably in Brussels—to contain the traffic, which would enable us to undermine the finance of the appalling rebels?
Mr. Cook: I have expressed our view to Liberia on many occasions during the past year—including face to face with the Foreign Minister of Liberia. In fairness, the surface evidence of the past few days is that Liberia has actually been putting pressure on Foday Sankoh to halt the violence and not to return to conflict. The Liberians are also playing a part in trying to negotiate the release of the detainees. At present, we do not have a complaint about the conduct of the Government of Liberia, although we are well aware of the long history to which the hon. Gentleman alludes.
In relation to diamonds, the international debate sparked off a very welcome contribution by De Beers, which made a responsible statement and suggestions. At the United Nations, the Fowler report on Angola highlighted several measures that could be taken, some of which are perhaps rather more ambitious than international agreement might attain. However, within the G8 we are making good progress towards a statement at the forthcoming meeting of Foreign Ministers in July. I hope that there will be some product when we meet—but, of course, that depends on agreement among eight countries.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: I believe that the Government have acted rightly and properly in the grave circumstances described by my right hon. Friend. He mentioned his telephone conversation with Madeleine Albright and the American support. Has he made an approach to the French, or have they offered to give military support? Are the Russians and the Chinese being kept fully informed of developments in order to obtain their support within the UN?
Mr. Cook: We have held discussions in the UN Security Council, which, of course, involved all the permanent members. The Security Council issued a robust resolution condemning the actions of the RUF. I know that the council is constantly re-evaluating how it can support the mission in the field. Several British personnel are attached to the UN in relation to the planning and maintenance of that operation. We shall continue to use that and our role as a permanent member to keep the matter at the top of the UN's priorities.
We do not expect a military contribution from the French. They would reasonably expect us to be in the lead over Sierra Leone, just as we would expect them to be in the lead on an African country with which they had a historic connection. I briefed all the Ministers of the European Union when I met them at the weekend. I received strong support from them. We issued a statement condemning the actions of the RUF and supporting the UN mission.
Mr. John D. Taylor: Obviously, the Unionists support the statement made by the Secretary of
528
State. From that statement and from the lunch-time news, it is clear that the situation could rapidly decline. However, the right hon. Gentleman said that HMS Ocean and the support vessels could not reach the area for another week. How quickly could the spearhead battalion move from Dakar to Freetown international airport?
Mr. Cook: We anticipate that most of the battalion will be in place by tonight. The movement of the Army and the military assets that I described has been rapid, expeditious and impressively professional—a sentiment that I hope the House shares.
Mr. Crispin Blunt: No one will envy the Foreign Secretary and the Government the difficult decisions that they will face during the coming days. However, what the House, the country and—above all—our armed forces are owed is clarity about the mission. As the Foreign Secretary told us that the RUF has broken its commitment to the Lome accord, is it his view that the country has returned to a state of civil war? In effect, is the UN mission to implement the accord over? If the UN is to remain in the country, does it need a new mandate and a new mission? The whole question of the UN presence is one for grave consideration. The Foreign Secretary talked about logistics and giving vehicles to the UN force, but he made it explicit that there would be no combat troops. Does the Foreign Secretary understand my concern that we are on a slippery slope, with an unclear mandate for the UN? He said that the first duty of our armed forces was to protect British nationals, but then said that Britain would take a lead in restoring the peace process. Will he make it clear to the House that the armed forces currently being deployed to Sierra Leone will not be drawn into the civil war on the side of the Government?
Mr. Cook: I can certainly assure the House—as I have already done—that we have no intention of deploying combat troops as part of the UN mission. I remind the hon. Gentleman of the comments of the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell). We are a permanent member of the Security Council. We cannot maintain that role and our leading role in the UN if we refuse to provide even logistic support to a UN force that is in the country and if we refuse to provide all possible bases on which that force can succeed—even though we may not be part of it.
I frankly disagree with the sentiments expressed on whether the United Nations mission should be withdrawn and on whether its mandate was over because it had failed. I cannot think of a better way to give comfort and encouragement to the RUF than to agree with those sentiments.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: With the Secretary of State for Defence at his side, will the Foreign Secretary take the opportunity to endorse the need for highly mobile rapid reaction forces such as we have deployed to Dakar? No unit is better suited to that purpose than the Parachute Regiment, which was deployed last June in Kosovo.
In response to the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor), the Foreign Secretary suggested that the spearhead battalion would move to Freetown, presumably with the intention of holding the international airport there. Are the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State

529
for Defence satisfied that we have sufficient troops for that purpose, should they meet resistance when they get there?
Mr. Cook: At present, Lungi airport is in the hands of the United Nations, so we do not anticipate resistance when we deploy there. Yes, we are confident that we have sufficient troops for the purpose for which they have been sent.
The hon. Gentleman is right to stress how this event underlines the importance of rapid reaction forces, and we attached priority to them in the recent strategic defence review. I had a chance to observe the Parachute Regiment in action in Pristina when I visited the town. It did an extremely professional job and maintained peace in the streets of Pristina. It is a tribute to the regiment that the local people greatly regretted its withdrawal.
Dr. Jenny Tonge: Could the Foreign Secretary tell us a little more about security sector reform? He said that £70 million had been spent already in aid for security sector reform. What does he think that money has achieved over the past 12 months and can we have an assurance that aid to Sierra Leone will continue?
Mr. Cook: First, the £70 million—it is actually £69 million plus—was for all the aid and development assistance in Sierra Leone and not just for the security sector; it has been committed, but not necessarily all been spent. However, it is by far the largest national contribution to Sierra Leone and much of it is being used to fund the demobilisation and reintegration programme and to provide general economic assistance to build up the capacity of the Government of Sierra Leone.
Specifically, quite a significant sum is also going into the development of the training of an army for the Government of Sierra Leone. Considerable progress has been made, but we must remember that we are starting from almost zero and dealing with a Government who have faced serious rebel challenges on several occasions and who had absolutely no army left of their own. Against that background, we are making good progress and I believe that we were on target to meet our original aim of providing the Government with an army to replace the United Nations force when it withdrew.
Dr. Julian Lewis: It is common ground on both sides of the House that a force should be sent to protect British citizens. However, how would the Foreign Secretary reconcile a medium or longer-term commitment in any wider capacity whatever with the admission made by the Secretary of State for Defence only a few weeks ago that British forces are already significantly overstretched?
Mr. Cook: There is no question of a long-term commitment by the troops that have been sent. On overstretch, the hon. Gentleman will be well aware that the issue exercises both the House and the Government. At the height of the Kosovo involvement, we had a 47 per cent. overstretch, but I am pleased to tell the House that that is now reduced to 27 per cent., which is exactly the degree of overstretch that we inherited from the previous Government.

Points of Order
5.19 pm
Mr. Mike Hancock: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. First, during Culture. Media and Sport questions, the hon. Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Rapson) mentioned me in his question to the Secretary of State. The hon. Gentleman attempted to be mischievous and to mislead the House, and he did not forewarn me that he was going to mention me. It was the second time in three weeks that he had done that, and I ask whether that was in order.
Secondly, I should like to take this opportunity to put the record straight. At no time have I talked down the interests of Portsmouth or—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I can deal with the first point, which is a point of order—the second point is a matter for debate, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will find his own way of putting it right. I endorse his feelings that we do better in this place when courtesies between right hon. and hon. Members are recognised. If one hon. Member refers to another, it is proper that he give notice.
Mr. Hancock: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should like to inform you that, on this occasion, I gave the hon. Member for Portsmouth, North notice that I was going to raise the matter.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I naturally assumed that.
Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should like to report to the House that, sadly, Mr. Stan Hurrell, who took over his father's business and served the House by providing our newspapers for 58 years, died on Friday night in St. Thomas's hospital. His family, who were with him, will continue the business. Many Members, including the Father of the House, have been in touch with the family, who maintained the newsagents outside the tube station and with whom the Serjeant at Arms, his predecessors and Members had many dealings.
I thought that the House would like to know that the family are very grateful for the huge support that they have been given by Members. Mr. Hurrell's death from cancer was long and painful, but the end came peacefully.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for bringing that sad event to the wider attention of hon. Members. As he said, many of us remember the long and dedicated service that Mr. Hurrell gave to this House and to individual Members. We were sad that he suffered so long from such a debilitating illness, which he bore very bravely. I am sure that all hon. Members would wish to extend their sympathy to Mr. Hurrell's widow and family at this sad time.

Orders of the Day
  Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill
  As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.
New Clause 8

  DELEGATION OF COMMISSIONERS' FUNCTIONS
  '.—(1) Anything authorised or required by or under any enactment to be done by a relevant Commissioner may be done by any member of the staff of that Commissioner who is authorised for the purpose (whether generally or specifically) by that Commissioner.
  (2) In this section "relevant Commissioner" means the Interception of Communications Commissioner, the Security Service Act Commissioner, the Intelligence Services Act Commissioner or any Surveillance Commissioner.'.—[Jane Kennedy.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  5.22 pm
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Jane Kennedy): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 3—Investigatory Powers Commission—

  '.—(1) There shall be a body of Commissioners named the Investigatory Powers Commission, consisting of the Investigatory Powers Commissioners.

  (2) The Commissioner under section 8 of the Interception of Communications Act 1985, the Security Service Act Commissioner, the Intelligence Services Act Commissioner, the Chief Surveillance Commissioner and the ordinary Surveillance Commissioners shall each henceforth be known as Investigatory Powers Commissioners.

  (3) The Secretary of State may by order provide for the discharge under the general direction of the Commission of any of the functions of one Commissioner by any Commissioners.

  (4) The Secretary of State shall appoint one of the Commissioners to be chairman of the Commission.

  (5) The Secretary of State may by order amend subsection (2) insofar as it regulates the number of Commissioners.

  (6) Schedule (Investigatory Powers Commission) shall have effect with respect to the Commission.

  (7) No order shall be made under this section unless a draft of it has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House.'.

  Government amendments Nos. 36 to 38, 68 to 83, 87 and 88.
  New schedule 1—'INVESTIGATORY POWERS COMMISSION—

  1. The Investigatory Powers Commission may appoint such officers and servants as they think fit, including investigating officers, subject to the approval of the Secretary of State as to numbers and as to remuneration and other terms and conditions of service.

  2. Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Commission may make arrangements for the regulation of their business.

  532

  3. The arrangements may, with the approval of the Secretary of State provide for the discharge under the general direction of the Commission of any of the Commission's functions by any Commissioner.

  4 Anything done by a Commissioner shall have the same effect as if done by the Commission.'.

  Government amendments Nos. 55, 92 and 93.
  Jane Kennedy: As I am speaking to the Government new clause and amendments, it might help if I explain their purpose and deal with issues that we debated in Committee and that were raised on Second Reading. I wish to make it clear that we have listened carefully to hon. Members' comments and have sought to address their concerns in our amendments.
  As I said during the Standing Committee debate, we are sympathetic to the need to rationalise the system of commissioner oversight that we are introducing, wherever possible. However, we are not considering going as far as is suggested in the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) and his colleagues, which would establish a single unified commission. In Committee, I outlined our thinking on the matter, pointing out that we believe that combining the various secretariats to the commissioners into a single body will achieve most of the benefits of amalgamating the commissioners' roles without sacrificing their distinctiveness.
  There are strong arguments for retaining separately in statute the identity of some commissioners, who are experts in their respective fields, regularly visiting those agencies whose activities they oversee. Therefore, as I said in Committee, they are a more effective check than could be a body of commissioners whose responsibilities ranged widely across the spectrum of investigatory powers.
  In Committee, I raised questions of accountability and security. Amalgamating commissioners' functions would risk obscuring the lines of accountability and compromising their expertise. The system proposed in the Bill is designed to ensure that the need-to-know principle is strictly observed and that details about particular individuals are shared to the minimum extent possible. Within a unified secretariat, members of staff would work for particular commissioners and this principle could be maintained. Amalgamating different commissioners' functions would make this considerably more difficult.
  For those reasons, we tabled Government amendments Nos. 55 and 75, and new clause 8. Between them, those amendments would ensure that each of the commissioners was properly provided with staff who could act on their behalf, thereby facilitating the creation of a unified secretariat. In Committee, I referred to an audit team being sent out under the auspices of the interception of communications commissioner to examine communications data requests. The Government's intention is to create not only a unified secretariat but an investigative secretariat, along the lines suggested in the new schedule. Those staff would act entirely in accordance with a plan established by the commissioners.
  The commissioners must be satisfied that the arrangements for oversight are such that they can genuinely report to the Prime Minister at the end of each year on the operation of the powers. That said, I see no reason why they personally need to visit police stations

  533
  up and down the land to check, for example, the process for recording authorisations for directed surveillance and the question of whether particular directed surveillance was authorised properly.
  The surveillance commissioners established under the Police Act 1997 already have a secretariat. We intend that that secretariat, which is geographically split between London, Edinburgh and Belfast, should be augmented so that it provides for the interception commissioner, intelligence services commissioner and security service commissioner. That does not go as far as the single, unified commission proposed in the Opposition amendments; none the less, I hope that, after listening to my assurances, the Opposition will feel able to withdraw their amendments and accept instead the Government amendments. Our amendments do not go quite as far as the Opposition's in terms of what is on the face of the Bill, but they do go most of the way toward ensuring the consistency that the Opposition want.
  I turn my attention to amendments Nos. 36 to 38. Clause 18 places a duty on persons involved in interception of communications to keep secret matters relating to that work and all aspects of interception warrants, and it introduces an offence of unauthorised disclosure. Clause 50 imposes a similar duty to keep secret the giving of certain decryption notices under part III, their contents and related matters. The Bill as it stands does not make express provision to allow disclosures to be made to any commissioner, including the interception commissioner. That is clearly a deficiency and the amendments will correct it, ensuring that even if internal safeguards were to fail, no one would be barred by the criminal law from bringing a matter to the attention of a commissioner.
  The remaining amendments, Nos. 68 to 83, 87 to 88 and 92 to 93, deal with the covert investigations commissioner. In Standing Committee, I stated that there might be scope for amalgamating the role of the covert investigations commissioner—the only new commissioner created by the Bill—with that of the Office of the Surveillance Commissioners established by the Police Act. That is what the amendments are designed to achieve. Amalgamating those roles will facilitate consistency in oversight across those public authorities other than the intelligence services that carry out activities under part II.
  I hope that those measures will reassure the House that we are doing all we can to ensure that oversight of the powers in the Bill is as seamless as possible, while respecting the properly different functions of the existing commissioners to whom the Bill refers. I believe that the amendments respond to the Opposition's criticisms regarding the Bill's over-bureaucratic tendencies.
  Mr. Oliver Heald: On Second Reading, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) made the point that part IV is over-bureaucratic. She said:
  We already have a Security Service Act commissioner, an Intelligence Services Act commissioner, a chief surveillance commissioner and ordinary surveillance commissioners. None of those appears to have an independent investigatory team available to them.
  534
  In connection with the two additional commissioners referred to in the Bill and mentioned by the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, my right hon. Friend said:
  I seems that the Government believe that commissioning should be a growth industry.—[Official Report, 6 March 2000; Vol. 345, c. 782.]
  5.30 pm
  We discussed that at length in Committee, and the way in which the debate unfolded was helpful. The Opposition pointed out that there would be at least one extra commissioner, that he would not have any staff and that the proposal was not in the best interests of regulation. The Opposition argued that the work should be streamlined and that the proposed commissioners should have real teeth—the ability to investigate. The Minister has tabled new clauses and amendments that meet many of our concerns.
  By allowing members of staff authorised by the commissioner to undertake the work of the commissioner, by reducing the proposed number of commissioners by eliminating the covert investigations commissioner and giving his role to the chief surveillance commissioner, and by providing staff for the purpose of investigation to both commissioners, the Minister has met most of our concerns. The unified secretariat does not go as far as a unified commission, but it is a substantial step in the right direction.
  The issue of disclosure to the commissioner was raised in Committee, although it was not a major issue between us. Nevertheless, I am glad to see the technical changes that are being made. The other points made by the Minister meet many of our concerns. In the light of her comments, I do not intend to pursue our new clause and new schedule.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I am glad to be present, although I feel slightly disadvantaged by the fact that, for very good reasons, my two colleagues who served on the Committee cannot attend. The expertise is therefore elsewhere.
  Hon. Members from all parties who are members of the Intelligence and Security Committee would have wished to be present, so it is unfortunate that Report and Third Reading are taking place on a day when they are all away on Committee business, and that they could not be accommodated.
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke): I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I am acutely aware of the fact that the Intelligence and Security Committee is in Washington this week. I met the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) to discuss that beforehand, and we did our best through the usual channels to reschedule the debate, but were unable to do so, despite the fact that it would have been better for the consideration of the Bill for all members of the Committee, particularly those who served on the Standing Committee, to be present. I acknowledge the points made by the hon. Gentleman, which we did our best to meet.
  Mr. Hughes: I am grateful to the Minister. I intended no criticism of him or his colleagues. I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed

  535
  (Mr. Beith), like hon. Members from other parties, would have liked to attend, and I know that efforts were made to facilitate that.
  May I pass on to the House the apologies of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan), who has particular technical expertise in the matters that we are discussing? I am told that the one south Yorkshire event of the year that he cannot miss is the cutlers feast, which is attended by 500 of the greatest and the best in the commercial world of south Yorkshire. [Interruption.] That is confirmed by the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) from the Conservative Front Bench. As the guest speaker today is my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy), my hon. Friend the Member for Hallam did not feel that he could be absent from the event.
  I read and followed the debates in Committee. We welcome the simplification of the commissioner system. We support the amendments and new clauses and the thrust of those tabled by the Conservative party. We argued for, and are glad to see, the recognition of the need for a proper secretariat. That clearly was a lacuna. The system cannot be run without adequate back-up, as Ministers have recognised.
  We argue that prior judicial authorisation is one of the best ways of ensuring that the right decisions are taken by commissioners and others. We shall come to amendments and new clauses that take us back to that debate.
  I appreciate that there is a disagreement between us, but we perceive that as the preferred way of encircling the procedures. I expect that the matter will be left to the other place, where others will want to pick it up. Even if our proposal is not accepted, a properly resourced secretariat that supports the commission's decisions is likely to achieve the best result.
  I want to ask the Minister about the implications of new clause 8, which states:
  Anything authorised or required by or under any enactment to be done by a relevant Commissioner may be done by any member of the staff of that Commissioner who is authorised for the purpose (whether generally or specifically)…
  That might be fine in principle, but we need to ensure that the senior and accountable person makes the decisions and that responsibility is not delegated too much or too far.
  Our discussion is similar to the debate on whether the Home Secretary or the chief constable of a police force signs a warrant and is thus responsible. I should like some assurance from the Minister that the new clause does not hide an intention to delegate. The intention should be for the commissioners to make the decisions, especially when there will be fewer commissioners—rightly, in our view—and the number of those who can properly cover both tasks, which were originally separated, has been reduced by one.
  I should also be grateful for illumination on how far and how often the Government envisage delegation taking place. Again, I am not asking for a conclusive answer, but am registering the importance of commissioners, who have been appointed because of their expertise, authority,
  536
  public recognition and acceptance, and not people further down the chain of command, making decisions on the public's behalf about sensitive and delicate subjects.
  Jane Kennedy: I am grateful for the thoughtfulness with which hon. Members have responded to the debate. Given the general support for our proposals, I shall not test hon. Members' patience by making a long speech. However, in response to the point of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), it is for the commissioners to determine the extent of delegation. As I said earlier, the commissioners have to report directly to the Prime Minister. They must be satisfied that their reports are full, accurate and thoroughly investigated and that they are able to stand by them. It is therefore proper for them to decide the extent of the delegation. I expect it to be to the level in the secretariat that is appropriate to the investigation. I hope that that provides the reassurance that the hon. Gentleman seeks.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 1

  OFFENCES
  '.—(1) A person is guilty of an offence if—

  (a) with intent to impede access to protected information or the putting of that information into an intelligible form, he fails to comply, in accordance with any section 46 notice, with a requirement of that notice to disclose a key to protected information; and

  (b) he is a person who has possession of the key.

  (2) A person is guilty of an offence if—

  (a) he fails to comply, in accordance with any section 46 notice, with a requirement of that notice to disclose a key to protected information;

  (b) he is a person who has had possession of the key, but that key was not in his possession after the giving of the notice and before the time by which he was required to disclose it; and

  (c) with intent to impede access to protected information or the putting of that information into an intelligible form, that he did not, before that time, make a disclosure, to the person to whom he was required to disclose the key, of all such information in his possession as was required by that person to enable possession of the key to be obtained.

  (3) In proceedings against any person for an offence under this section it shall be a defence (subject to subsection (4)) for that person to show—

  (a) that it was not reasonably practicable for him to make a disclosure of the key before the time by which he was required to do so;

  (b) where the key was not in his possession at that time, that it was not reasonably practicable for him, before that time, to make such a disclosure as is mentioned in subsection (2)(c); and

  that as soon after that time as it was reasonably practicable for him to make a disclosure of the key or (if earlier) of sufficient information to enable possession of the key to be obtained, he made such a disclosure to the person to whom he was required to disclose the key.

  (4) Except in a case where there is no authorisation for the purposes of section 47, in proceedings for an offence under this section a person shall have a defence under subsection (3) only if he also shows that it was not reasonably practicable for him to comply with the requirement in the manner allowed by that section.
  (5) In proceedings against any person for an offence under this section it shall be a defence for that person to show that—

  (a) at all material times he used due diligence to store the key which he had or had had in his possession; and

  (b) that were the key was not in his possession after the giving of the notice and before the time by which he was required to disclose it, that he did before that time, make a disclosure to the person to whom he was required to disclose the key, of all such information to his possession as was required by that person to enable possession of the key to be obtained.

  (6) Where a person is being proceeded against for an offence under this section, then at any stage of the proceedings, if evidence has been given of his having failed to comply with any requirement of a section 46 notice to disclose a key to protected information, the following evidence shall be admissible for the purpose of proving that he had an intention to impede access to protected information or the putting of that information into an intelligible form—

  (a) evidence that he has or has had in his possession other information of value on grounds falling within section 46(3) or likely to be of value for purposes connected with the exercise or performance by any public authority of any statutory power or statutory duty; and

  (b) provided that seven days notice in writing has been given to him of the intention to prove the conviction, evidence that he has within the [five] years preceding the date of the offence charged been convicted of any offence carrying a maximum sentence on conviction on indictment of five years imprisonment or more.

  (7) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—

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

  (b) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or to both.'.—[Mr. Heald.]

  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Heald: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 7—Failure to comply with a notice to disclose a key to protected information—
  '(1) A person is guilty of an offence if—

  (a) with intent to impede access to protected information or the putting of that information into an intelligible form, he fails to comply in accordance with a section 46 notice with a requirement of that notice to disclose a key to protected information;

  (b) there are reasonable grounds for believing that possession of the key is necessary to obtain access to the protected information or the putting of that information into an intelligible form; and

  (c) he is a person who has, or who after the giving of the notice and before the time by which he was required to disclose the key, had possession of the key.

  (2) A person is guilty of an offence if—

  (a) he fails to comply in accordance with a section 46 notice with a requirement of that notice to disclose a key to protected information;

  (b) there are reasonable grounds for believing that possession of the key is necessary to obtain access to the protected information or the putting of that information into an intelligible form;

  538

  (c) he a person—

  (i) who has had possession of the key; and

  (ii) who has, or who after the giving of the notice and before the time by which he was required to disclose the key had, possession of information which would (either on its own or in combination with other information) enable possession of the key to be obtained; and

  (d) with intent to impede access to protected information or the putting of that information into an intelligible form, he did not before the time by which he was required to disclose the key, make a disclosure to the person to whom he was required to disclose the key of all such information in his possession which would (either on its own or in combination with other information) enable possession of the key to be obtained.

  (3) In proceedings against any person for an offence under this section it shall be a defence for that person to show—

  (a) in the case of an offence under subsection (1), that it was not reasonably practicable for him to make a disclosure of the key before the time by which he was required to do so;

  (b) in the case of an offence under subsection (2), that it was not reasonably practicable for him, before the time by which he was required to disclose the key, to make such a disclosure as is mentioned in subsection 2(d); and

  (c) where in either case it has since that time become reasonably practicable for him to make a disclosure of the key or of information which would (either on its own or in combination with other information) enable possession of the key to be obtained, he has made such a disclosure to the person to whom he was required to disclose the key.

  (4) Except in a case where there is no authorisation for the purposes of section 47, in proceedings for an offence under this section a person shall have a defence under subsection (3) only if he also shows that it was not reasonably practicable for him to comply with the requirement in the manner allowed by that section.
  (5) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—

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

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

  Government amendments Nos. 39 and 67.
  Amendment No. 18, in page 51, line 10, leave out Clause 49.
  Amendment No. 20, in clause 51, page 53, line 42, at end add—
  '(aa) that a key disclosed in pursuance of a section 46 notice is stored safely and kept safe at all times;'.
  Government amendments Nos. 89 and 90.
  Mr. Heald: This group of new clauses and amendments is at the heart of the Opposition's anxieties about the Bill. New clause 1 is an attempt to deal with the controversy about clause 49 that has raged since the first consultations on it.
  Clause 49 makes it an offence punishable by two years' imprisonment to fail to comply with a notice that requires the production of a key to coded information—an encryption key. The criticisms are made from two perspectives, which are different but none the less valid, in the Opposition's view.
  The first criticism involves the punishment for failing to provide a decryption key. I pause to mention that the Minister has said that a key will be required only in cases in which the most suspicion arises and the Government

  539
  are least satisfied with the bona fides of the person from whom the key is sought, and that plain text will be adequate in other cases. Requests for keys will be made of those who are suspected of money laundering, paedophilia or drug trafficking. They are the sort of people who would be prepared to accept the lesser offence and take the two-year sentence rather than give up their secrets and make available information that could lead, after further investigation, to their prosecution for the most serious offences, carrying sentences of imprisonment for life or a long determinate period. That point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir P. Beresford) on Second Reading and several times in Committee, but the Government are not prepared to tackle it.
  The first criticism is that to ask for a key but not to be given one would be of no use to the Government, but the serious criminals whom they want to target would be all too prepared to contest the lesser offence in the hope that they might be acquitted. They will think two years much better than 10. Through the new clause, we have attempted to tackle the problem of the inadequate sentence. The second criticism, which is entirely different, is that the defendant will be required to prove his innocence and explain why he was unable to provide the key. The burden will be entirely on him to prove his innocence if it is shown that he failed to comply with the notice.
  Apart from the criticism that that may breach the European convention on human rights, it is repugnant at law to require someone to prove his innocence. It goes against the golden thread that runs through English justice. Neither we nor those who are concerned about the matter have taken that lightly. Justice and the Foundation for Information Policy Research asked a leading barrister to consider the issue and produce advice on which we could deliberate in Committee. Tim Eicke has done that.
  In Committee, I asked whether it would be possible for a Law Officer to address such issues so that we could have a detailed legal exposition of how the Government justify the offence. That did not happen; I chided the Minister, but he said he was certain that the offence was perfectly normal, and that it was not a matter of huge concern that an innocent person would be required to prove his innocence. However, it is worth considering what Tim Eicke and others have said. In his advice, he describes the offence as "repugnant".
  We all know the careful way in which lawyers phrase things. In fact, the Minister criticised it in Committee, and told us that he hated lawyers. A barrister may say that something is doubtful or difficult, or that there are legal difficulties, but the use of the word "repugnant" shows that the problem is pretty serious. Tim Eicke describes the offence as repugnant because no guilty intention is required as a ground for a conviction. He says that in most offences, the prosecution has to prove not only that particular events occurred, but that someone had a guilty intention. For example, for theft, one has to be dishonest; for murder, one has at least to intend to cause grievous bodily harm. However, in this offence, if it is shown that someone did not comply with the notice served on him, the duty is on him to prove that he lost or forgot the key, or that there is some other innocent explanation.
  540
  5.45 pm
  In his advice, Tim Eicke points out:
  A defendant who chooses not to give or call evidence may be convicted without any mens rea—
  any mental element—
  of the offence being proved against him.
  He refers to the views expressed in 1999 by the Lord Chief Justice in ex parte Kebeline, which was a case dealt with in the divisional court, and to the Canadian case of Whyte, which has a persuasive authority. He also quotes the words of Chief Justice Dickson. The Minister will remember these words; they are important:
  If an accused is required to prove some fact on the balance of probabilities to avoid conviction, the provision violates the presumption of innocence because it permits a conviction in spite of a reasonable doubt in the mind of the trier of fact as to the guilt of the accused.
  He points out a number of other infringements of, and difficulties with, the European convention on human rights.
  The Opposition are not satisfied that an offence that a leading human rights barrister describes as repugnant should go on the statute book without the Minister having met the challenge of the ideas that have been presented to him and explained why it is right in this case that a man can be found guilty when he has no guilty intention. Why should someone have the burden of proving his innocence?
  It is important to note that it is not only the main Opposition party that has made that point. The Liberal Democrats have also made it, and their new clause 7 tries to import into the Bill the concept that there should be a guilty mind, and an intention, before a person can be found guilty. Although they do not go as far as we do, like us they include the intention to impede access to justice or to prevent the information from being put into an intelligible form.
  The Minister should explain how this provision conforms with the European convention on human rights. A man should be innocent until proven guilty. How does the Minister deal with that argument?
  New clause 1 deals with the issues that I have described. It would increase the penalty for this offence to 10 years, which the Liberal Democrat new clause would not. It would also allow evidence of previous convictions or of other material found at the scene of a police investigation to be used to prove guilty knowledge. That is not unprecedented; it has been done before in other areas of law. If the police or other authorities go to a house and during their investigations they find, for example, a computer that has paedophiliac images of children, that evidence should be allowed to be used to point to the vast mass of encrypted material on the computer and the fact that when the accused was asked to produce the key to the information he refused to do so. The court could draw an inference of guilty knowledge.
  With new clause 1, we are trying to target the offence more on serious criminals, while respecting human rights and the right of an individual to the type of fair trial that we have had in this country for hundreds of years. We hope that the Minister's response will be fuller on this issue here than it was in Committee.
  Amendment No. 20 deals with what happens to a key once it has been disclosed. It would require a key disclosed in pursuance of a section 46 notice to be stored

  541
  safely and kept safe at all times. That relates to a separate concern of the industry. Encryption was not invented to help the criminal. It was invented because commercial enterprises wanted to be able to keep commercial transactions secret. Banks and financial institutions—some of the most important commercial enterprises in the country—rely on encryption to do their business.
  One of the fears that those organisations have expressed to me, along with others—including all Opposition parties—is that if keys are not to be kept safe, or if the arrangements are not entirely satisfactory, there will be a fracturing of trust in the whole process of encryption. That could have a dramatic effect on business confidence in a new technology and a new industry—something that members of all parties profess to support, but that the Government endanger by failing to deal with the position fully. Both EURIM—the European Informatics Market—and the Foundation for Information Policy Research have made that point, and I look forward to what the Minister has to say about it.
  In Committee, we said that the notices that the Bill requires to be served on companies and individuals should be obviously recognisable and verifiable, so that con merchants and others could not use the procedures while pretending to be the authorities. Under amendment No. 39, a notice under clause 46 will have to include the grounds for that notice, the office, rank or position of the notice giver, whether a plain text is sufficient, the time by which the notice must be complied with, and the manner of compliance. Both we and the Liberal Democrats suggested such measures in Committee, and we therefore welcome the amendment; but it does not go as far as we would have liked.
  We wanted a system enabling all notices served under the Bill to be instantly recognisable, and to contain security information that could be checked through the use of ultra-violet light or other security methods. We wanted the establishment of a clear verification point where the industry could go to find out whether a notice was valid. Although reassurances have been given, it would be helpful if the Minister repeated them, and told us what point the deliberations have reached.
  Government amendment No. 67 is also important, because it provides that the key will be required only in special circumstances. The Minister agreed to that in Committee. As I have said, that means that those who are asked for the key are far more likely to be those who are under suspicion, because plain text will be more readily satisfactory from those who are not under suspicion. However, I should be grateful if the Minister would explain a little more fully what he means by special circumstances. Has he a definition in mind, or is it important to use that term in order to provide a certain amount of flexibility?
  Government amendments Nos. 89 and 90 exclude directors from liability under part III. They, too, meet concern expressed by Opposition Members in Committee, and show that on that occasion, the Minister was listening—but if he is prepared to listen in respect of little things, is it not time that he listened in respect of new clause 1?
  Mr. Simon Hughes: Progress has been made since the Committee stage. The tenor of my remarks will reflect the tenor of what was said by the hon. Member for North-East
  542
  Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald): in Committee, he and his colleagues argued from much the same perspective as my colleagues, and I do not think it is any secret that in large measure they were advised by the same people—people with the same expertise and the same concerns.
  The Liberal Democrats believe that new clause 1 is a move in the right direction, but, because it differs from our new clause 7 in certain particulars touched on by the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire, we naturally commend new clause 7 rather than new clause 1. I shall say more about that later. We consider Government amendments Nos. 39 and 67 to be improvements: I shall say more about those later as well. Amendment No. 18, tabled by Liberal Democrats and Conservatives, would delete the current offences provision—clause 49—because we feel that the clause gets the balance wrong. We support Conservative amendment No. 20, because it is geared to give additional protection. We hope that the Government's response will be positive. Government amendments Nos. 89 and 90 themselves constitute a positive response to concerns expressed in Committee, and we welcome them.
  We consider all four Government amendments to be improvements, and feel that the additional single protection mechanism proposed by the Conservatives in amendment No. 20 should commend itself to the Government. However, we agree with the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire that the Government have still not dealt with the major concerns—concerns that are felt not just by buffs and hacks who live entirely in the world of information technology for reasons of work or interest, but by others who use e-commerce, e-mail and the rest.
  Like other hon. Members, I have received representations not just from organisations but from individual constituents, who have expressed anxiety about potential criminal liability on the basis of their inability to disprove a negative. As the Minister knows, we have been over that ground recently. As I made clear on Second Reading and as my party has made clear throughout, we differ with the Conservatives on this part of the Bill, although not to a great extent. We agree with the Government that a Bill is needed to make this area of activity comply with the European convention on human rights. Because of the development of technology, certain activities take place that have not yet been brought under the umbrella of the convention, and it is important for us to have legislation for that purpose before 2 October this year, when the convention will become law in England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
  We think it desirable to have a Bill, even one with flaws. The paradox is that, if the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire and I are right, there may well be an immediate failure to comply with the convention. It is, I think, no secret—indeed, it is an obvious, self-evident truth to me—that before long someone will test the Act's compatibility with the convention. It may not be some big corporate enterprise; it may be an individual who, having been served with a notice, finds that he cannot reasonably comply and is therefore liable to be punished as a criminal for failing to prove that he does not have information, has lost his password, cannot remember the code or cannot assist in decryption. That may happen regardless of innocence or guilt in relation to the substantive material; indeed, no offence may have been committed.

  543
  The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire cited pornographic material that might be used for purposes of paedophilia, an example that I gather was given often in Committee. The concern is understandable, but nothing of that nature might be involved. The person in question might have been falsely accused of having possessed material and subsequently got rid of it; he would then be served with a notice and, under the law as drafted, would be unable to get himself out of that hole. That is an important criminal line to cross.
  6 pm
  Let me again make the point that I made in Committee and elsewhere; I made it to the Minister during our consideration of the Terrorism Bill, on which we had a similar debate. The Government are duty bound—I accept that they do it in the proper manner—to certify in the Bill that they are European convention-compliant. They have done it in this Bill as they have elsewhere. They take advice. Clearly, they must act on that advice because, if they do not, they will be in default and, if taken to court and so on, they may be in difficulty.
  There is a constitutional failure in the system, however. I understand that, if the Government seek legal advice and that advice says, "Don't do it. You would be acting illegally," they will pray in aid the exemption from the freedom of information legislation, saying, "This is not a matter of fact or statistics; it is not even an evaluation of facts or statistics. It is advice to Ministers, so we don't want to disclose it," but I have never understood why the Government are so reluctant to disclose the advice, which, by definition, they must claim supports their case.
  If the Government—as they must have done and as they say they have done—have gone to those who advise them, whether in government or outside, and have said, "This is ECHR compliant," there may be a difference of view. The advice that the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire and I have seen and the advice commissioned from elsewhere could at least be intelligently pitted against and put into a discussion with that other advice.
  The problem is that, when we proceed in that way, with the Government being so secretive, the lay people, in a sense—because even those of us here who are qualified as lawyers are lay people—argue on the basis of advice given without expert guidance. That is exactly why the Special Standing Committee procedure is often useful: people can look at the implications and give their own legal advice.
  Government—not necessarily only the present Government—do Parliament a disservice when they pray in aid advice that supports them while letting no one see it so that their argument cannot be tested by cross-examination and questioning.
  Mr. Heald: Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern? The Attorney-General has said—I quoted the details in Committee—that the proper occasion for a justification of the issue of compatibility is a debate in the House. If Ministers are not prepared to go beyond the bald statement in the Bill and into the real detail, and to give
  544
  a full legal explanation of why they say it is compatible with the ECHR, that makes nonsense of the Attorney-General's comment.
  Mr. Hughes: I agree. Like the hon. Gentleman, I am conscious of the two concerns; it is not new ground for those who served on the Committee or, indeed, who were here for the Second Reading debate. One is for the individual civil liberty of the individual citizen against the state that is seeking to interfere with his or her activities. The other is that business could potentially be harmed. Business will think, when deciding where to carry out its activity, that the regime in Britain will be less helpful and more dangerous and threatening to it than a regime elsewhere, so it will say, "Thank you very much, but we will take our business elsewhere."
  There are those two concerns—not always, as it were, coming together on the same side. The problem as I see it—I come to it, as I have said, as a lay person—is that some people, to try to avoid being caught, will be pushed into taking measures that do not help the normal activity of the business. If the United Kingdom is much more draconian in that area than many other countries, and I understand that it is, that cannot be helpful for our position.
  Again in passing, may I say that that is exactly the sort of area where the logical thing to do would be to have provisions that are as similar as possible to those in other countries—at least those throughout the European Union—so that we are not commercially disadvantaged in relation to countries with codes of rights, Bills of Rights or constitutions, such as those in Scandinavia or elsewhere.
  Again, we had a similar debate when we considered the Terrorism Bill. The Minister says that what is being referred to is not a reverse burden of proof but a statutory defence. I understand that argument. In the case of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill, the statutory defence will not be rarely used, as it will be in the case of the Terrorism Bill, under which on the widest definition it is likely to be pretty exceptional for someone to pray in aid that defence. In this case, it could apply at any time to any Tom, Dick or Harry, or to his female equivalent—big player or small player. Showing that he has legitimately forgotten something is much more likely to be difficult for the individual citizen than for the corporate enterprise.
  My advice is that the power will be ineffective and that the real criminal will find ways round it. The Government are building in a great power and getting the balance wrong between the state and the individual, but they will not catch the real villains they want to catch because those people will be clever enough to work out ways to escape. They are the people who will refuse to give the keys, and who may escape.
  I understand that that is the reason why the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire seeks to make the penalty bigger. He wants to make less aggressive the provision of the state, but he none the less wants to ensure that people who are caught are penalised. I understand that, although I disagree with it, as he knows. We think that that is far too great a penalty for what may be—although the courts will have discretion in the matter—a pretty minimal offence.
  The key difference between the hon. Gentleman and us, which is why we cannot support new clause 1—we will not support it if it is voted on—is the ability to pray in

  545
  aid previous offences which may have nothing to do with a particular activity. I find that a worrying addition, which I do not understand. The hon. Gentleman would have been more likely to receive more widespread support if he had not included that in the new clause. I do not think that it adds to it at all.
  Let me make one last general point. Those who know about these technical matters argue that, rather than having a heavy offence provision and draconian powers whereby the state and the prosecution authorities can effectively seek information from people who, if they cannot satisfy them, are liable to be found guilty, it would have been better to have facilitated the better technical use of the means of getting information—what I understand in the jargon is called forensic hacking, a concept which I understand and which might afford us a better approach. Those who are interested in and who know about these things argue that the current approach may be wrong. We can always concoct criminal procedures, structures and balances between the state and individual, but we might also have gone down that road.
  I am conscious that the Data Protection Commissioner has expressed concerns about those things. Those have not changed, I understand, since they were expressed before the Bill went into Committee. I remind the Minister of that.
  Government amendment No. 39 is a response to the amendment that was moved in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan), which specifically sought to address the issue. We are grateful that the Government have responded to that and effectively given the exact response that we sought in Committee.
  The same applies to Government amendment No. 67, applying to the additional test, which should be about the disclosure of data, not about the disclosure of keys. When the matter is looked at simply, it seems that it is far better to ask people to provide the data; only if the data are not or cannot be provided should we seek to get the key. Many people will find it much easier to provide just the hard copy, to put it crudely—to provide the print-off. The commercial world will be much more comfortable if it is asked to provide the data, rather than the key.
  As I said, the Liberal Democrats support amendment No. 20. Although the amendment is simplistic in some ways, it is valid. Keys must be looked after properly, and, in theory, they will be. We have to ensure, however, that a delegated person—who may be third down in the chain of command—is not given responsibility for key security if he or she cannot do the job properly. The issue generally is important, but, commercially, it is potentially very important. We really have to ensure that, once keys are recovered by the authorities, they are properly looked after.
  Government amendments Nos. 89 and 90 deal with company directors' liability—the key escrow by intimidation provisions—and address issues raised by my colleagues in Committee. We not only welcome but are grateful for those amendments.
  Our new clause 7 seeks to address the keys issue. We still think—there is common ground among Opposition Members on this—that the prosecution should have to show intent to impede. We also still think that, using the usual test of beyond reasonable doubt, mens rea—guilty
  546
  mind—should have to be demonstrated. It must be demonstrated that the defendant acted not neutrally but intentionally in dealing with an inquiry.
  Our new clause would require:
  reasonable grounds for believing that possession of the key is necessary to obtain access to the protected information or—
  for—
  the putting of that information into an intelligible form.
  We also believe that it is right—it seems to be self-evidently right—to insist that the defendant must have had the key after the notice was issued, as opposed to having had it at some time in the past. The Government are still arguing that both tests—that one has or that at some stage one had the key—should render one guilty. We think that failure to distinguish between the two cases would make the provision dangerously wide. Like Conservative Members, we argue that the provision needs to be narrowed.
  Liberal Democrats believe that a defence should be available to defendants who provide the key or information after the notice's initial date requirement if it has been become reasonably practicable to provide it. We also argue that the offence should be split into two parts, to cover cases in which a person does not have the key, but could get it. Although such a provision may sound technical, people should know the charge they face and the procedure they should follow.
  The danger of Conservative Members' new clause 1 is that, in the interests of advancing human rights in one sector—to protect people against, as I said on Second Reading, the overmighty powers of the state—we shall be removing defendants' usual human right not to reveal previous convictions. I argue that such a trade-off would be an excessive loss of human rights.
  In Committee and elsewhere, the Minister has been very definite in saying that there would be no concessions on the issues addressed in this group of amendments. We are grateful, however, to note that Ministers have made a little movement around the edges of the central provision. Nevertheless, I should be troubled if Ministers were still unwilling to move on the main issue.
  If the Government do not move on the main issue, if we cannot dislodge them in a Division on this group of new clauses and amendments and if Labour Back Benchers are not willing to acknowledge the civil liberties and balance of defence points, I am fairly confident that this is precisely the type of issue on which the paradox of this Parliament allows us to rely on the other place to make the case for civil liberties and for defendants and to reduce the state's power. If that happens and the other place amends part III, particularly clauses 46 to 49, I hope that the Government will think again and not seek to reinsert in the Bill that which we believe should not have been in it initially. Although we welcome the Government's movement on the issue, the key movement has not yet occurred. We hope that we can persuade them to make it.
  Ms Margaret Moran: I really do want to make a very brief point on the length of sentences proposed in new clause 1. I do not wholly agree with the new clause's general content, but simply ask for a review of the penalties proposed for the offence. I do so based on concerns expressed by various children's charities—

  547
  primarily the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, Barnardos and NCH Action for Children—with which I have recently discussed the issue.
  6.15 pm
  Quite apart from the Bill's technical, legal and civil rights aspects, we have to consider the way in which some of the Bill's provisions are being regarded by some of those who—far from being techies—are very much in the real world and at the receiving end of the issues. We have to acknowledge that there is a rising tide of concern, particularly among parents, about internet safety for children.
  Only a week or so ago, in Milton Keynes, not far from my own constituency, there was a case in which a 13-year-old girl turned up to meet someone whom she met in an internet chat room and believed was a 15-year-old boy, only to discover that he was a 47-year-old man who had travelled from Newcastle specifically to meet her. I am sure that the case alarmed every parent who heard about it, and that those parents immediately began looking more closely at their children's internet activities.
  Additionally, as we know, the internet contains websites showing pornographic, violent or racist material. Just last week, in my constituency, there was a case involving a website used by prisoners in the United States to display very disgusting material. They are also using internet chat sites that could be accessed by children. Most of the material is grossly offensive and highly unsuitable for children. We also know that e-mail is being abused by paedophiles seeking to make contact with children and for many other offensive activities.
  The concern is that the advent of strong encryption technologies gives criminals the opportunity to hide their criminal activities or to conceal other evidence. If a paedophile has on his computer files e-mail messages, pictures or other material that discloses a serious sexual offence against a child—an offence for which he knows he could face a prison term of 10 years or more—he could encrypt the lot and, if investigated by police, simply refuse to hand over the key to decrypt the files, thus making unavailable evidence of a serious offence.
  The other concern is that, in the Bill, the maximum penalty provided for defendants who refuse to hand over a key would be two years and a fine. With time-off for good behaviour, such a person might spend only a few weeks in prison. Subsequently, they might even be able to apply for and gain employment with children, in a school or residential centre. We should also remember that—because encryption technology has allowed the person very effectively to cover his tracks—there will be nothing on record showing that the person has a history of sexual offences.
  Such a possibility raises issues about the Bill's relationship to protection of children legislation. Having worked on the Protection of Children Act 1999, I think that we have to ensure that such people are effectively registered, and that the protections offered by the 1999 Act apply also in internet cases, as if the evidence were in writing.
  The Bill makes major improvements on the current situation, which would not allow for prosecution in such cases. Nevertheless, the situation will still not be
  548
  satisfactory. We need seriously to review the penalties provided in this part of the Bill. I hope that the Minister will listen to the message from children's charities. The issue does raise complex civil liberties issues, and there are no ready-made answers, but, when children's charities tell us that there is great and growing unease, we have seriously to examine how the Bill will impact on the protection of children.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I completely understand the argument that the hon. Lady is presenting, but does she, and do those in the children's charity world to whom she has talked, accept that the paradox and the danger are that one might be able to catch the relatively minor offender but that we need to think more widely if we are to get the real villains—the big-time criminals and serial offenders whose activities we want to stop—because they are the most likely to escape the system?
  Ms Moran: Indeed, the issue is more complex than one of sentences alone. As the hon. Gentleman said earlier, we may need to consider other measures to provide the widest possible safeguards.
  It is outside the remit of the Bill, but there is a need for a review of how technology interacts with child protection and sexual offences legislation so that we can provide the widest possible protection not only for our children, but for those who may be vulnerable to people who seek to abuse the new technologies in ways that we may not have anticipated.
  Mr. Ian Taylor: I shall be brief, because many of the points that I wanted to make have already been made by my hon. Friends and by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes).
  I am not a lawyer. I have some technology interests, which are fully disclosed. I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Luton, South (Ms Moran), who told us of some valid concerns that have been expressed by children's charities. Industry is also concerned, for different reasons, so there are pressures on the Minister from many different directions. I am on record as saying that we should have a Bill to deal with these matters, and I think that he made valiant efforts in Committee to listen to the concerns expressed by Opposition Members. The Bill is slowly improving but, as the new clauses and amendments show, we are not absolutely certain about it.
  Regardless of whether my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) wants to press the matter to a vote, it is important that the relevant considerations are taken into account in another place. If, for example, there is still a fear that the European convention on human rights will be breached, the Bill will run into real problems, even though the Government's objectives in introducing it are very important.
  Industry has concerns about individuals and companies being pressured to disclose a key that may not be in their possession, because the burden of proof seems to be the wrong way round. The Minister must bear that in mind constantly and act appropriately before the Bill is enacted.
  Among the expressions of concern is a letter from Vodafone dated 6 April. It says that the provisions are
  not practicable; the key could be lost or no longer used, etc. Industry may have no choice but to place their keys with secure third parties and thus it seems to be a way of reintroducing key escrow.

  549
  I was the Minister who dealt with such matters and proposed key escrow, and I am sensitive to the fact that industry still has concerns about its coming in through the back door.
  Industry is also concerned about security following disclosure of the key. The letter from Vodafone says:
  In our opinion, disclosure of the key in the first instance would make most industries feel their security has been compromised and this has implications for e-commerce, an environment where consumers require complete confidence in the security of service providers.
  That is the conundrum in the Bill: encryption is vital to encourage confidence in e-commerce, but the wrong sort of disclosure could undermine that confidence. If the person who had served the warrant mishandled the key or the information, there could be considerable problems.
  I know that the Government understand the concerns and are trying to respond to them, but the problem, as information supplied to EURIM—the European informatics market group confirms, is that companies are beginning to move their offices offshore to escape the implications of the Bill. We are told that
  global processing and communications operations that used to be based in the UK (including petro-chemicals, pharmaceuticals etc as well as the City)
  appear not to be waiting around to find out whether there is a benign interpretation of the Bill by the courts, but to be moving offshore now. That must be a cause for concern.
  One of the problems concerns the validity of those who are authorised to issue a warrant and how that validity is checked. All those matters were raised in Committee and I know that the Government are doing their very best to meet our concerns, but they have not yet gone far enough. Big issues are at stake, and I underline what my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire said.
  Mr. David Maclean: There is a straightforward point to be made here: clause 49 as drafted is unjust and wrong. An innocent person unconnected with paedophilia, terrorism, drug dealing or crime of any kind, simply because information is required of him—he may have been sent an e-mail encrypted by mistake—and because, with the best will in the world, he cannot provide the encryption key, can be liable to a prison sentence of two years. He may have had no intention to commit a crime, but he can go to prison for two years. That is unjust and fundamentally wrong.
  The clause is wrong for another reason. Serious criminals such as paedophiles, drug dealers and terrorists—those whom the security services, the National Criminal Intelligence Service, Customs and Excise and others should be, and are, pursuing ruthlessly—can simply refuse to hand over the key to encrypted material, because it is by far the best option for them to be found guilty of an offence under clause 49, which attracts a maximum sentence of two years, which becomes even less with good behaviour. They will know that handing over the key and allowing the authorities to see the paedophile material or information on terrorist activity or drug dealing would land them with a much heavier sentence and put them in prison for perhaps 10 years.
  It is almost as iniquitous that serious criminals will get only a two-year sentence as it is that an innocent person who has forgotten the key should get the same sentence.
  550
  That is why I support new clause I. It may not be perfect—neither is a lot of the Government's legislation, as every parliamentary draftsman in the northern hemisphere is being roped in to draft it—but its intention is correct. It restores the fundamental safeguard that there must be mens rea. That is how I read the suggested provision embodied in the words
  with intent to impede access to information or the putting of that information into an intelligible form …
  It is vital to include the intention of the person in the Bill, because it will remove the injustice that exists in clause 49. If the Government are willing to accept new clause 1 in principle—I hope that they are and that they will go away and redraft the provision before the Bill reaches the other place—they will make a double improvement to the Bill. They will remove the injustice of innocent people facing a two-year sentence because they cannot provide the key or the information when requested.
  6.30 pm
  My dementia is no more advanced than that of many other hon. Members, but I have several passwords by now. I must have about 20 hotmail accounts, not for any security reasons, but because I cannot remember the supposedly infallible password for the account I created last weekend. I always pick a password that I am bound to remember, but I always forget it. When I was on the parliamentary system, I was always having to call the Communications Directorate—I see the Parliamentary Secretary nodding—to admit that I could not remember my password and could not get into the system. The directorate tells me that about 90 per cent. of the calls to its hotline are from Members of Parliament or their secretaries and staff who cannot remember their password. That may be a lighthearted point, but what would happen if we had encrypted material?
  What will happen to all those innocent business men and women who have encrypted material with an encryption key involving letters and figures, but who cannot remember it? They might have lost the bit of paper the key is written on, or mixed it up with a pin number from the bank, or any of the other bits and pieces of information about which we are told, "Keep it safely, memorise it, don't forget it." We try to have a system, but I often have to call my wife, because she remembers my pin number. We have to keep all sorts of information securely and, inevitably, as human beings, we fail. We forget or lose things.
  When we forget or lose information, we should suffer the penalty of inconvenience, such as the hassle of calling the bank to request a new card or dealing with the computer companies. We should suffer the embarrassment of admitting to the police that we cannot find a document, and have to turn our houses upside down to try to find it. However, someone should not go to prison for two years because they have been forgetful. If the Government accept new clause 1, on the other hand, the paedophiles, the drug dealers and the terrorists should go to prison for 10 years if they deliberately try to keep their encrypted information from the security services. That would be the effect of new clause 1, and I urge the Government to accept it.
  Mr. Richard Shepherd: My right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) has put the argument most pithily. The concerns and fears aroused by clause 49 are that an innocent man may be found guilty. One reluctantly acknowledges that the questions of mens rea and the burden of proof are no longer defended in the House by the majority parties. I have great difficulties with the view of this country adopted by the Home Office and those who drafted the clause.
  I accept the comments of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) that our liberties are now more consistently defended in the other place. In saying that, I request the other place to examine the Bill rigorously. It has features that are unacceptable to our sense of freedom, liberty and the due processes that we have held to be important for many years.
  I give an especial cheer for amendment No. 18, which contains the simple words "leave out Clause 49". That concentrates the mind better than any other amendment. Clause 49 is dreadful as drafted and would not be much improved by any of the amendments. The Home Office should reflect on that before the Bill reaches the House of Lords.
  Mr. Charles Clarke: Before I respond to the detailed points made in debate, I offer the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) a little suggestion to help him with his passwords. If he needs eight-letter passwords, he could rotate three—remember, Tory-Gvmt and dementia. They would remind him of the history of much of what we are considering.
  With your agreement, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall first explain the reasons for the Government amendments in this group. The effect of Government amendment No. 39 is to make further stipulations about the form that a decryption notice is to take. In Committee, hon. Members tabled a number of amendments relating to the form of a decryption notice and I undertook to look at whether the requirements set down in clause 47(4) could look more like those for demands for communications data in clause 22(2).
  Government amendment No. 39 is the result and I think that it will be welcomed. I am grateful to the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) for doing so. I know that industry has made representations on it. As I said in Committee, there is clearly a need for consistency regarding notices—for the sake of the authorities authorising and serving the notices and for the sake of those receiving them, whether individuals or businesses.
  Industry was worried about the possibility of receiving "spoof' notices. Companies will also want to know what it is that they are being asked to provide and by what time. Government amendment No. 39 addresses those points. There clearly needs to be an audit trail for queries. I hope that business will be reassured by that.
  There should be an agreed format to notices. How this looks in practice is properly the subject of consultation with industry and others, because we want to get it right to achieve clarity and best practice. That work will be taken forward in the public consultation on the code of practice for part III.
  Government amendment No. 67 inserts an extra test in clause 47 to specify that a requirement to disclose a key may be imposed only when it is believed that special
  552
  circumstances make that necessary. In Committee, I undertook to consider whether there was room for narrowing down the circumstances when a key might be required to be disclosed rather than the authorities simply accepting the plain text of protected material.
  I know that many, especially in industry, have no difficulty with the principle of handing over intelligible data when required to do under some lawful authority. However, I recognise that there are concerns about handing over keys, despite the tests and safeguards already in the Bill. The amendment is designed to respond to that concern.
  I have previously said that the Government expect that the disclosure of plain text, rather than a key, is likely to be sufficient in most cases in responding to the service of a decryption notice. That is especially true where legitimate businesses are concerned. However, we have listened to industry's concerns and have tabled this limiting amendment, which introduces an extra test to clause 47. We already have a proportionality test, so the logical addition is a necessary one.
  The amendment ensures that imposing a requirement to disclose a key may be made only where there are special circumstances to the case making that necessary. We have given that careful thought and, in the case of decryption requests made to legitimate businesses, a requirement to disclose a key where the plain text is available would certainly be most unusual. The difficulty for the law enforcement agencies surrounds the use of the power against suspects. In those cases where trust may be an issue—for example, guaranteeing that any plain text disclosed is the right plain text—requests for keys may perhaps be more frequent. The future is uncertain and we cannot know how often that might be, but the amendment limits the power to demand a key to special cases.
  As we have said, the Government are, in many ways, trying to deal with a future danger here. The consensus view is that the rising criminal use of encryption poses a significant threat, for many of the reasons already mentioned in the debate. However, neither the law enforcement agencies, nor industry itself, can predict just how the technology will spread—and nor can the Government. We are striving to maintain a balance with the legislation now. This amendment is a reflection of that balancing exercise. In response to suggestions made in Committee by hon. Members of all parties, I have volunteered these changes because we are genuinely seeking to strike the right balance between providing effective powers and allaying the reservations about the Bill felt in industry and among groups concerned with civil liberties.
  Our intention is to set out in the code of practice what circumstances would be considered special—a point raised specifically by the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald). A draft of the code will be published for public consultation, but the relevant circumstances may be determined along the lines that we have previously set out—for example, where issues involving trust or time limits mean that keys might be required in a special case. We think that those issues of trust and timeliness are central to the implementation of the "special" need.

  553
  I hope and believe that industry will welcome the amendment, and I am glad that it has been generally supported in the debates so far.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: When will the draft code of practice be published? Did the Minister specifically reject the "reasonable belief' test for the exceptional occasion when the key itself—rather than the other copy—would be sought? When he was considering the issues raised by the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) and by us, did he apply his mind to when the power adopted by the Government might be used? Is that in the code of practice, or will it be set out somewhere else?
  Mr. Clarke: We intend that the code of practice will cover the power that the hon. Gentleman mentions, and we have given the commitment that the draft code will be published while the Bill is going through the House.
  In Committee, I said that I would explore the use of the word "exceptional" rather than "special". We have taken advice on the matter, and have decided that the word "special" should be used in the Bill, as we consider that it gives more legal flexibility than would the word "exceptional". However, we consider that the definitions of what will be covered by the word "special" will meet any concerns that the issue was not being dealt with effectively.
  Government amendments Nos. 89 and 90 would exempt part III from the effect of corporate liability. In Committee, I undertook to consider whether part III could be exempted from the provision concerning directors' liability for corporate default. I know that industry has voiced concerns about the matter, and consequently we have agreed to make the changes that amendments Nos. 89 and 90 put into effect. I believe that those changes will be welcomed.
  I turn now to the matters raised in the debate by Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members. There is an inconsistency in the Conservative argument. The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) made an eloquent speech, in which he spoke about the changes being made to the burden of proof and the length of the sentence. However, the Conservatives' inconsistency was evident when they accused the Government of being both too tough and not tough enough.
  Mr. Heald: Does the Minister agree that, when an offence is repugnant to justice, any sentence would be wrong? However, if an offence is fair and a trial is fair, does he agree that its seriousness should be reflected in the sentence, especially when it relates to money launderers, drug traffickers and paedophiles?
  Mr. Clarke: I do not accept that the offence is "repugnant to justice", to quote the hon. Gentleman, as I shall explain later.
  I resisted these amendments in Committee, where we discussed this issue at some length. I remain unconvinced that changes are necessary. The central accusation—the core point being used to justify the amendments—is that the construction of the offence of failing to comply with a decryption notice in clause 49 means that innocent people will suffer. We do not agree. The issue has
  554
  generated more heat than light among critics of the Bill, but I accept that the issue is important, so I will state the Government's position clearly.
  6.45 pm
  The first point to make and to emphasise is that there must be reasonable grounds for believing that a person served with a decryption notice has a key before use of the power can be authorised in the first place. That is an important barrier and burden, and I assure the House that the Government take it seriously.
  Importantly—it is worth stressing this point again—part III does not allow the authorities to obtain material that they cannot obtain now. New types of material are not being drawn in by the Bill: it is a question of ensuring that authorities can obtain the material that they are already entitled to obtain.
  The new decryption power works only where material is lawfully obtained. In other words, material must be obtained lawfully before the decryption power can come into effect. Only if that material is encrypted, and someone who is in a position to decrypt it refuses to do so, does the question of a prosecution arise.
  Two hurdles must be negotiated before a prosecution is justified—there must be reasonable grounds, and the material has to have been lawfully obtained. I also stress that, where prosecutions occur, it is for the authorities to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the accused has, or has had, a key. That is a significant burden of proof, and it is laid on the prosecution, not the defence. It is therefore the third serious burden of proof that the prosecution in such cases must meet.
  The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) chided me for using of the phrase "statutory defences". He was right to say that a similar question was debated in connection with the Terrorism Bill—in Committee, on Second Reading and on Report. There are statutory defences for people who have destroyed, lost or forgotten keys. Those defences need to be proved only on the lower level of proof—that is, the balance of probabilities.
  Many criminal offences on the statute book place some burden on the accused. We have heard much talk about reversed burdens of proof, but the real issue is whether an accused can show, on a balance of probabilities, that he or she no longer has access to the key. How can the accused do that? The answer is straightforward, and applies in any court of law or legal circumstance. The accused must explain what has happened and the court will decide whether, on balance, he or she is telling the truth.
  I believe that such circumstances will arise very rarely. I accept that that assertion is open to challenge, so I shall set out the reasons for my belief. I shall begin with looking at the position of industry in this matter. Were a business ever to find itself in a position of having to show, on the balance of probabilities, that it did not have a key at the relevant time, I fully expect that it could produce any number of technical records to explain the circumstances under which it normally used, stored and disposed of keys.
  That is what businesses do. The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border described the system to deal with lost keys that obtains in the House, and it is the norm for

  555
  businesses and organisations such as public authorities to have such a system. Responsible and secure businesses are likely to have back-up mechanisms. They will anticipate the loss of a key, and will have an audit trail that shows when keys are used for what purposes, and when they are destroyed.
  We know that keys are valuable to business. Businesses have impressed that upon us, but keys are also valuable to anyone who uses systems such as those under consideration. It is therefore reasonable to expect that businesses will be in a good position if—for legitimate businesses not suspected of involvement in criminality it is a big if—they find themselves facing a prosecution. Because the requirements are straightforward and set out clearly in the Bill, the number of times that any problem will arise for businesses in this regard will be minimal; indeed, I consider that it may never happen at all.
  For individuals, forgetting a password is a reasonable thing to do. People in my private office at the Home Office, and others with whom I have worked, accept that it is not unknown for me to forget a password occasionally. The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border admitted that he, too, was often guilty of forgetting his passwords.
  It is rare for no contingency arrangements to be in place for such an eventuality. The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border described the arrangements—involving direct contact with parliamentary officers, his reliance on his wife and so on—that he has in place. Depending on the circumstances of the case, people might relatively easily state that they have forgotten their password or their key, and then volunteer how it was generated, when they last used it and what they normally do when they forget their key. They could also say whether their service provider, for example, provided a back-up system, or whether every time they lost their key all data was destroyed or lost. There are no impossible burdens here—the processes are very clear.
  I stress that clause 49(2) excuses someone from liability if he or she no longer has possession of the key and has done what he or she can to enable the key to be recovered by the person requiring it. That does not mean that the defence will fail if the key cannot be recovered—that would be an impossible burden. It simply means that the accused must assist by giving as much information as he or she has available. If they do, they have nothing to fear from prosecution. I emphasise that point, because I believe that it has not been made sufficiently clearly to date.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: The argument is perfectly reasonable, but the most vulnerable people will be individuals who are not part of a system with a back-up procedure. They are their only check—they invent the password, and they can forget it. Given that the test is only 50/50 in that it is a case of whether the person is believed or not, would it not be better at least to concede that someone must be found, not just on a balance of probabilities, but beyond any reasonable doubt, to be hiding the fact that they know the password, data or encryption mechanism?
  Mr. Clarke: I have tried as best I can to deal with the points that have been made fully. The balance suggested by the hon. Gentleman is not right; that which we are suggesting is right, which is why the Bill is worded as it is.
  556
  On sentencing, I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South (Ms Moran). I pay tribute here in the Chamber, as I did in Committee, to the work done on this issue by the children's charities, which addresses serious and important points. As my hon. Friend said, complex issues of civil liberties are concerned, and there is no doubt that the overriding concern must be the seriousness of the offence. Increasing the penalty to 10 years would put the offence on a par with, for example, cruelty to children. I am not sure whether that is right.
  The Bill has been accused of amounting to key escrow by intimidation, a point to which the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor) referred. We have been keen not to go down that road. There is a difficult balance to be established between the two questions, and we have decided that the balance proposed in the Bill is the right one. However, I can tell my Friend the Member for Luton, South that we will look carefully at how the Bill evolves and whether the situation that she describes becomes a reality. If her fears are proved right, we will look again at the appropriate level of sentencing in this area.
  The Government do not take lightly the questions that have been raised in the debate—we take them very seriously. It is a hard balance to decide, but we think that the balance in the Bill is right. I commend the Government amendments to right hon. and hon. Members and hope that they will reject the Opposition amendments.
  Mr. Heald: We are simply not satisfied, and we have not been throughout. Barristers have described the offence as repugnant; they have referred to cases in which judges have considered similar provisions and described them in the most damning terms. It is wrong that we should create offences that offend against the golden threat of justice, as it has been described, by saying, "Oh well, the sentence is only two years." It does not matter what the sentence is if the offence is unjust. If the offence is just, the serious crime of failing to give information to the prosecution authorities that might reveal money laundering, drug trafficking or paedophilia should be marked.
  We want a just offence to be created, which does not require an innocent man to prove his innocence but puts the burden of proof fair and square on the prosecution. If he is found guilty, the event should be marked with due seriousness. We intend to divide the House on new clause 1, which we believe meets the justice of the case.
  Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 136, Noes 317.

  Division No. 180]

  [6.54 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Brazier, Julian

  Amess, David

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Burns, Simon

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Butterfill, John

  Baldry, Tony

  Cash, William

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Bercow, John

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Blunt, Crispin

  Clappison, James

  Boswell, Tim

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Brady, Graham

  Collins, Tim

  557

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Cran, James

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Day, Stephen

  Norman, Archie

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Ottaway, Richard

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Page, Richard

  Evans, Nigel

  Paice, James

  Faber, David

  Paterson, Owen

  Fabricant, Michael

  Pickles, Eric

  Fallon, Michael

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Flight, Howard

  Prior, David

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Robathan, Andrew

  Fraser, Christopher

  Robertson, Laurence

  Garnier, Edward

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Gibb, Nick

  Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

  Gill, Christopher

  Ruffley, David

  Gray, James

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Green, Damian

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Greenway, John

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Shepherd, Richard

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Hammond, Philip

  Soames, Nicholas

  Hawkins, Nick

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Heald, Oliver

  Spring, Richard

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Steen, Anthony

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Streeter, Gary

  Hunter, Andrew

  Swayne, Desmond

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Syms, Robert

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Key, Robert

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Townend, John

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Trend, Michael

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Lansley, Andrew

  Waterson, Nigel

  Letwin, Oliver

  Wells, Bowen

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Lidington, David

  Whittingdale, John

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Wilkinson, John

  Luff, Peter

  Willetts, David

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Wilshire, David

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Yeo, Tim

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Madel, Sir David

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Malins, Humfrey

  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown

  Maples, John

  and

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Mr. John Randall.

  NOES

  Ainger, Nick

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Allen, Graham

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Benton, Joe

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Berry, Roger

  Ashton, Joe

  Best, Harold

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Blizzard, Bob

  Austin, John

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Barnes, Harry

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Battle, John

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Beard, Nigel

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Breed, Colin

  558

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Foulkes, George

  Browne, Desmond

  Fyfe, Maria

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Gapes, Mike

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Gardiner, Barry

  Burden, Richard

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Burgon, Colin

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  Burstow, Paul

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

  Godsiff, Roger

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Goggins, Paul

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Gorrie, Donald

  Cawsey, Ian

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Chaytor, David

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Clapham, Michael

  Grocott, Bruce

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Hancock, Mike

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Hanson, David

  Clelland, David

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Clwyd, Ann

  Healey, John

  Coaker, Vernon

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Cohen, Harry

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Coleman, Iain

  Heppell, John

  Connarty, Michael

  Hesford, Stephen

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hill, Keith

  Corbett, Robin

  Hinchliffe, David

  Corston, Jean

  Hood, Jimmy

  Cotter, Brian

  Hope, Phil

  Crausby, David

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Cummings, John

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Cunningham, Ms Roseanna (Perth)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Hurst, Alan

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Hutton, John

  Dalyell, Tam

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Illsley, Eric

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Davidson, Ian

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Jamieson, David

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Jenkins, Brian

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

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Denham, John

  Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Dismore, Andrew

  Dobbin, Jim

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Doran, Frank

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Dowd, Jim

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Drew, David

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Kemp, Fraser

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Khabra, Piara S

  Efford, Clive

  Kidney, David

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Ennis, Jeff

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Etherington, Bill

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Fisher, Mark

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  Laxton, Bob

  Flynn, Paul

  Lepper, David

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Leslie, Christopher

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Levitt, Tom

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  559

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Linton, Martin

  Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Rooney, Terry

  Lock, David

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Rowlands, Ted

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Roy, Frank

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Ruddock, Joan

  McDonnell, John

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  McIsaac, Shona

  Salter, Martin

  McNamara, Kevin

  Sanders, Adrian

  McNulty, Tony

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  MacShane, Denis

  Sawford, Phil

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McWalter, Tony

  Sheerman, Barry

  McWilliam, John

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Singh, Marsha

  Mallaber, Judy

  Skinner, Dennis

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

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

  Martlew, Eric

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Maxton, John

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Meale, Alan

  Stevenson, George

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Miller, Andrew

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Mitchell, Austin

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Moffatt, Laura

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Stunell, Andrew

  Morley, Elliot

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Mountford, Kali

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Mudie, George

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Mullin, Chris

  Timms, Stephen

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Todd, Mark

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Norris, Dan

  Trickett, Jon

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Truswell, Paul

  Olner, Bill

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Öpik, Lembit

  Turner, Dr (Kemptown)

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Pearson, Ian

  Tynan, Bill

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Pickthall, Colin

  Watts, David

  Pike, Peter L

  Webb, Steve

  Plaskitt, James

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Pollard, Kerry

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Pond, Chris

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Winnick, David

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Wood, Mike

  Purchase, Ken

  Woolas, Phil

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Worthington, Tony

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Wray, James

  Radice, Rt Hon Giles

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Rammell, Bill

  Wyatt, Derek

  Rapson, Syd

  Raynsford, Nick

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Mr. Don Touhig and

  Rendel, David

  Mr. Greg Pope.

  Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 2

  TECHNICAL APPROVAL BOARD
  '.—The Secretary of State shall appoint to a Technical Approval Board—

  (a) six representatives of persons appearing to him to be likely to be subject to technical obligations under this Act; and

  (b) such persons with statutory functions in relation to persons falling within paragraph (a).'.—[Mr. Heald.]

  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Heald: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 4—Report of payments made—
  '.—The Secretary of State shall report annually to Parliament setting out the payments made under section 13 in respect of each person to whom such payment is made, and where payments are not made, the reasons therefor.'.
  New clause 6—Appeal against payment decisions—
  '.—(1) A person to whom a payment is made under section 13, or a person who is refused payment thereunder, may within seven days of notice of the decision appeal to the Court as to the amount of such payment or the said refusal.
  (2) The Court to which an appeal may be made under this section shall be—

  (a) in England and Wales or Northern Ireland, the High Court and

  (b) in Scotland, the Court of Session.'.

  Amendment No. 7, in clause 12, page 14, line 7, after "order" insert—
  ', a draft of which has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House,'.
  Amendment No. 8, in page 14, line 41, at end insert—
  '(6A) Before giving a notice for the purposes of subsection (2) the Secretary of State shall obtain a certificate of technical approval from the Technical Approval Board.'.
  Amendment No. 19, in page 14, line 41, at end insert—
  '( ) A person on whom a notice under subsection (2) is served may apply to the Technical Approval Board for a review.
  ( ) A review may be sought on any of the following grounds—

  (a) that such steps as may be specified or described in the notice are not technically competent for the purpose set out in subsection (1);

  (b) that such steps are not proportionate to the purpose set out in subsection (1); or

  (c) that such steps exceed what is necessary to achieve the purpose set out in subsection (1).

  ( ) On a review application under this section, the Technical Approval Board may either cancel or affirm the notice, and, if it affirms it, may do so either in its original form or with such modifications as the Board may in the circumstances think fit.'.
  Government amendment No. 24.
  Amendment No. 9, in page 15, line 11, at end add—
  '(9) In this section "a certificate of technical approval" means a certificate in writing given by the Technical Approval Board to the effect that the steps specified or described in the notice would be—

  (a) technically competent for the purpose set out in subsection (1); and

  (b) proportionate thereto.'.

  561
  Amendment No. 13, in clause 13, page 15, line 12, leave out—

  'may, if he thinks fit,'

  and insert "shall".

  Government amendment No. 25.
  Amendment No. 10, in clause 21, page 24, line 16, at end insert—
  (4A) Where is appears to the designated person that a postal or telecommunications operator is not or may not be in possession of, but is or may be capable of obtaining any communications data, the designated person shall not give a notice under subsection (4) unless he has obtained a certificate of technical capability from the Technical Approval Board.'.
  Amendment No. 11, in page 24, line 16, at end insert—
  (4B) In this section "a certificate of technical capability" means a certificate in writing given by the Technical Approval Board to the effect that the postal or telecommunications operator—

  (a) is technically capable of obtaining the communications data, or

  (b) could be technically capable of obtaining the communications data if certain steps were taken, and the certificate—

  (i) specifies or describes such steps; and

  (ii) certifies that the taking of such steps would be proportionate to what is sought to be achieved by so obtaining the data.'.

  Government amendment No. 28.
  Amendment No. 17, in clause 71, page 77, line 21, at end insert—
  "'technical obligations under this Act" means steps to be specified or described in a notice pursuant to section 12(2) and steps needed to be taken pursuant to section 21(4) in order to be capable of obtaining any communications data.'.
  Mr. Heald: New clause 2 would set up a technical approval board made up of six representatives of industry and the regulator to vet technical requirements to be imposed by the Secretary of State on public telecommunications and postal services providers under clauses 12 and 21.
  We all accept the principle that there should be an intercept capability for the internet. As we made clear on Second Reading and in Committee, however, there is widespread concern at the unknown extent and cost of providing that capability as well as concern about communications data. When the Government consulted on these issues last summer, it became clear that there is uncertainty about whether it is technical practicable to provide such an intercept capability. The costs also remained uncertain.
  It is surprising that it was not until January that the Government troubled to employ expert consultants to report on the technical issues. However, the Smith Group of Guildford has done its work and its report has been published recently, for which I thank the Minister, even if I have to say that it is better late than never. The industry is considering the detail at the moment, and it is difficult to know exactly what the full response will be. Early indications are worrying. The Federation of the Electronics Industry tells me that, even at this early stage, some people believe that the measure will lead to bulk interception. The operators' group has not previously commented on the clauses; however, it now states:
  Despite assurances given to the Standing Committee, the remarks of Jane Kennedy MP, the Parliamentary Secretary in the Lord Chancellor's Department, the Bill as at present worded gives the
  562
  Government powers to require interception of data and other communications which will mean the commitment by communications service providers of a high level of expenditure on hardware, software and personnel. These costs will fall proportionately more heavily on smaller communications operators than on larger ones, and are therefore likely to be anti-competitive, and inimical to new entry.
  The assurances given so far are not comforting…Thus, the costs remain unspecific, and Government appears to arrogate to itself the right to decide to what extent the cost of these new regulatory burdens carried out for Government's benefit, would fall upon our industry.
  There is no negotiating machinery by which the industry could agree the definition of a reasonable intercept capacity, and there is not even a commitment to negotiate over costs.
  In effect, the group is saying that the broad scope of powers exercised purely at Ministers' discretion, coupled with a highly optimistic compliance cost assessment, is unsatisfactory.
  As we have pointed out, British Telecom noted that the mechanism for deciding what is a reasonable intercept capability will be a key factor in ensuring the successful implementation of the Bill and in avoiding putting the UK at a commercial disadvantage with the rest of the world. My hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor) mentioned Mr. Philip Virgo. Mr. Virgo is involved with EURIM—the European Informatics Market—but is commenting on his own behalf. He said:
  The main concern (of City institutions) is over the uncertainty as to who will have what rights of access to their data and communications and the risk of criminal access under guise of a warrant.
  He noted that many institutions are already "tiptoeing offshore". That point was also made by my hon. Friend.
  The Smith Group's report raises as many questions as it answers—as does previous information supplied by the Government. The group has decided that one solution cannot be applied to all internet service providers and it has come up with a menu. There is the low-cost option of active interception, whereby e-mails for a selected subscriber would be provided. The next option is semi-active interception, whereby control data would be passed to interception equipment each time an address was assigned to a selected subscriber. The subscriber traffic would be routed past an intercept point in order to obtain that. The most expensive option is passive interception, whereby all selected subscriber traffic would be forced to flow past interception points and there would be a selection of traffic.
  The report makes several points that are of concern. It states that the semi-active approach might be over-burdensome for small internet service providers and that the passive approach is more expensive to implement for the ISP and the Government in medium-sized ISPs and is therefore not recommended in such cases.
  The spectre is that a bespoke notice will have to be served on each ISP, with the technical requirements to be imposed on the particular ISP. That raises huge issues. One of the industry's concerns throughout the process has been that the provision should not discriminate between ISPs. Under the Government proposal that seems to be emerging—we have never actually heard it, but I hope that we shall do so tonight—a medium-sized ISP could be told that it had to provide only an active approach. That would be the cheap method. At the same time, another slightly larger ISP, which, although described as

  563
  "big", was in competition with the medium-sized one, could be required to implement the expensive, passive approach with huge start-up costs.
  7.15 pm
  Will the Minister confirm that IPSs—almost above all else—do not want the provision to be discriminatory? It should not create competitive advantages for one ISP over another. Will he confirm that active interception—as identified by the Smith Group—is a limited and cheap option? Would he be prepared to limit his ambitions to that? Will he confirm that the Smith Group has recommended that the Government should meet initial investment costs? Does he agree with that? Does the Minister agree with the cost estimate of the Foundation for Information Policy Research that ISPs will be required to pay more than £30 million?
  In Committee, the Minister said that ISPs would not support the idea of a technical approval board. I replied that I would consult on that point. The advantage of such a board is that it would be an independent body that understood the issues. I do not know whether the Minister claims to understand that fully. He nods—he does understand. I admit that there comes a point when the technical difficulty is beyond me. Does the Minister agree that the advantage of a technical approval board is that it would be independent? It would consider the Minister's proposal for companies and would be able to decide whether the proposal was technically sensible; whether it was proportionate to the purpose and—in the case of a small ISP—whether it would put the ISP out of business. The board would provide an element of independent scrutiny. After all, the Government are not expert in technical matters, as every computer project over the past 10 years has shown—there has not been a successful Government computer project for a long time.
  Governments are not technically proficient in such matters. An independent body could at least offer companies a review from technical experts. I said that I would consult on that matter. The Minister said that the Government would not welcome a scheme that allowed a quango to give technically sensitive information to competitors and that it would not be right to share such information. However, in a letter, he had previously told me that the only way that the Government could reduce costs would be by sharing expertise across the community.
  The Minister might be interested to learn that the Federation of the Electronics Industry stated that
  we believe that it is important that industry have the powers envisaged under your proposal for a technical approval board…I cannot agree with the Minister's statements…I thought you easily won the argument on technical approval board.
  The London Internet Exchange stated:
  We have always expected some kind of approval board…There is no feeling that confidentiality would be a problem.
  Numerous other bodies have told us that no one is against the measure. Will the Minister reconsider the matter? He has thought again about many of the issues. What is wrong with appointing an independent body to consider the matter? He will have to appoint technical experts. If his statements in Committee are correct, he will have to consult on the measure. Why not do so in the way that the industry wants? Why dig in?
  564
  New clause 4 would also build confidence. It would require the Secretary of State to
  report annually to Parliament setting out the payments made under section 13 in respect of each person to whom such payment is made, and where payments are not made, the reasons therefor.
  New clause 6 would give a right of appeal. That would ensure a level playing field between ISPs, so that if one seemed to be favoured over another for compensation, there would be some redress.
  It is welcome that the Government are responding to amendment No. 7, which provides that the generic requirements—the general terms to be applied to ISPs—would be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. We are pleased that they have conceded that point in Government amendments Nos. 24 and 28.
  The issue is not only about whether the Government's proposal is technically feasible—the Smith report expressed concern about whether it would be feasible to apply it to all ISPs and suggested that it would not be—but about the question of money. We are pleased that the Government have listened to the suggestions that were made in Committee. They are now prepared to respond to our amendment No. 13—Government amendment No. 25 acknowledges our point—which requires that they "shall" make a fair contribution to the industry. Amendments Nos. 17 and 19 are consequential on the acceptance of the idea of a technical approval board.
  The industry is obviously worried that the Government's proposal might be burdensome, especially as circumstances change with new technologies coming on stream. The Government's requirements today might not be their requirements in the future. There is evidence that companies are already responding to the proposal by moving, or by considering moving, offshore. We have built a marvellous new industry in information technology that does this country proud and it provides a future for young people in a new economy, as the Prime Minister would describe it. Therefore, it would be a tragedy to turn our back on that by being stubborn about something as sensible and well supported as a technical approval board.
  I hope that the Minister will take our suggestion more seriously than he did in Committee, where he described it as an expensive quango. He will have to do the work anyway. No extra cost will be involved—a point that the London Internet Exchange makes in its correspondence with me. A board would be nothing new; everyone expected one. Therefore, the industry says, "Come on Minister. Let us see a little more reasonableness and the colour of your money."
  Mr. Simon Hughes: Again, there is broad consensus among Opposition Members. It only remains for the Minister to sign up and we will be all aboard together. The industry and the people who made representations to us will be happy. The House will be happy, we will be able to move on to the next group of amendments and the Minister will be able to chalk up another success.
  As the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) said, the Government have already made two welcome concessions in this group of amendments. Government amendment No. 24 clearly accepts the principle of amendment No. 7, which was tabled by Conservative Members but which Liberal Democrats support. Government amendment No. 25 responds to points made in Committee, particularly by my hon. Friend

  565
  the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan), and it sensibly uses the wording in clauses 23 and 48 on the reimbursement of costs and seeks to apply it to clause 13.
  All the new clauses and amendments in the group that were tabled by Conservative Members are eminently sensible given the provisions in clauses 12 and 13. Clause 12 is the substantive clause, under which the Secretary of State can order those who provide postal services or public telecommunications services, or who propose to do so, to comply with interception warrants, and we anticipate that clause 13 will provide grants to meet the costs of that. It is sensible that the additional costs should be paid for as part of the system of getting our commercial sector into a position in which it can comply with the law. It wants to do that, and there has been a positive response to the suggestions made.
  We support the practical proposals in new clauses 2, 4 and 6 and in amendments Nos. 7, 8, 19, 9, 13, 10 and 11. There was considerable debate in Committee on how we would meet the concerns of industry. It is sensible to create a body such as a technical approval board, so that discussions can take place and agreement can be reached with industry. In Committee, the Minister suggested that the Government would try to reach agreement with the private sector and that they intended to proceed by consensus. That approach would be better secured by making it clear in the Bill.
  There needs to be an appeals system and we are grateful for the fact that the Government appear to have conceded the point that orders must be laid before both Houses and approved after a debate on them. That will give us the opportunity to ensure that the Government get it right, which is always an additional incentive. The proposals for a certificate of technical approval and for a review are sensible, as is the definition proposed.
  I welcome Government amendment No. 25 because it will ensure that the Secretary of State has the power to consider what payment is appropriate. The defect is that clause 13 contains a "may" and not a "shall" provision, and amendment No. 13 would cover that point.
  Two issues relate to compliance. The first is how those in the telecommunications world comply with the provisions and the second is the need to ensure that they have the technical ability to do so. It is no good to produce a scheme that is not technically feasible, so I hope that the Government will be positive about the principles in the amendments and new clauses, which have our broad support, even if they quibble with their wording.
  Liberal Democrats did not lead on this issue in Committee and we are happy that Conservative Members continue to lead on it. However, we broadly accept their arguments and people outside the House have been very positive about them.
  Mr. David Ruffley: Clause 12 is inadequate without the benefit of the amendments tabled by my right hon. and hon. Friends. It will provide no proper means for service providers to affect or to challenge notices served on them under the Bill. If the clause is accepted unamended, the United Kingdom industry will be subject to a regime unlike that imposed in any other developed industrialised economy.
  I shall address my remarks to new clauses 2 and 4. As my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) pointed out, the industry
  566
  believes that investors in this country will be deterred by the obligations set out in clause 12. In particular, potential investors will face technical implementation costs that are unquantified and unquantifiable. The industry's view is that those costs will constrain technical solutions and the development of technology, and that uncertainties will directly discourage investment in this country.
  The Government have a way out. They can agree to the amendments and to new clause 2, which is key because it would set up a technical approval board. One does not have to look far to see the reasons for the new clause. We should all accept—as the Minister did in Committee, I believe—that technology, especially internet technology, is moving rapidly. There is no analogy between intercept regimes for fixed-line and circuit-switched operating technology, like telephony, and the new world of the internet in which service providers must operate.
  It is vital that the technical requirements that authorities impose on service providers under the clause are reasonable. We contend that technical requirements will be reasonable and proportionate only if the industry provides genuine technical input to determine what the reasonable requirements of service providers are in relation to the capabilities defined in clause 12.
  7.30 pm
  With the greatest respect, the Government have not been awfully good on the quantification of costs, which is the subject of new clause 4. They have not shed much light on the real cost to small, medium-sized and large companies in this sector. The technical advisory board that would be set up if new clause 2 were accepted would give the industry and the Government much-needed information and a proper quantification of the costs to UK industry. That would enable Ministers to decide what is a reasonable technical requirement under the clause.
  My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire has rehearsed the arguments on that, so I will not develop them. I had the privilege of serving on the Committee considering the Bill, and I merely wish to register concern on behalf of the many operators who have contacted me and who have reiterated such anxieties since the Committee proceedings. I urge the Minister, who was diligent in Committee, and is also reasonable and exceedingly courteous, to give us further explanation, if possible, as to why the Government find a technical advisory board so objectionable—or, indeed, to say why it is otiose, irrelevant, unnecessary or redundant. Whatever words he chooses, will he explain why the board is, if not objectionable, unnecessary? if it is, why do so many operators take the contrary view and support our amendment?
  I shall quickly rehearse an explanation of the regime that a technical approval board would put in place. There would be six representatives from the industry, who would be likely to be subject to the technical obligations under this clause; there would also be; as new clause 2 states,
  such persons with statutory functions,
  which, typically, means the regulator.
  New clause 2 should be accepted because it would result in the Secretary of State having his or her feet held to the fire in relation to determining what is reasonable under clause 12(1). The Minister intended to satisfy us

  567
  with an assurance that he would consult. However, the consultation requirement of which he spoke in Committee is not in the Bill; it does not appear in clause 12 or anywhere else in relation to the obligations under that clause. That is not good enough.
  The new technologies coming on line will result in Ministers imposing obligations, but, as has been said, without the benefit of our amendment, there is no proper guarantee that those obligations will be technically competent or proportionate. Let me pre-empt the Minister by suggesting that he will say that the technical approval board would be another quango, and will then ask how much it would cost. We have already heard the answer to that: it should cost nothing, and indeed, might save the Government money.
  In the fast-moving world of the future, the Secretary of State or his successor will have to ask his civil servants for detailed technical advice before deciding what a reasonable obligation is and whether to impose it. With the greatest respect to civil servants in Whitehall, the technical advice that they are able to give the Secretary of State will not be as good as the advice that players in the industry can give him. People who are running businesses that require them to be on top of the subject, day in, day out, have technical ability and expertise that must be far in advance of what civil servants have at their command. No matter how technically brilliant such civil servants may be, they will never be as good as the players in the industry running businesses, who know the subject inside out.
  Such individuals would be on our board, and would give advice to the Secretary of State at a minimal cost—lower than the costs that he would incur by having civil servants trained up to give technical advice of comparable quality. We made that point in Committee, but the Minister did not, I fear, give an adequate response to it. I trust that he will give a slightly better answer in this debate, and that it will involve his acceding to new clause 2.
  I turn now to costs—the subject of new clause 4, which would oblige the Government to produce an annual report for Parliament, detailing grants made to compensate operators who have had to comply with the technical capability requirements in clause 12. That involves a big problem, to which the Government are alive, as they talk at great length about the need to cut regulatory and cost burdens on small and medium-sized enterprises in this country. There are units in the Cabinet Office that seem to do little else but talk about that important subject. In this debate, the Minister has an opportunity to put his money where his mouth is and deliver a Bill that reduces—or at least does not increase—the costs and regulatory burden on small businesses in the sector that it covers.
  As has been hinted, and as was discussed at great length in Committee, the costs imposed by clause 12—which are the subject of a compensatory grants system in clause 13, to which new clause 4 relates—are not one-off costs. Continuing costs will be imposed on the providers who are under such obligations, relating to the cost of software, hardware, extra staff and their training, the time that must be spent talking to law enforcement agencies, month after
  568
  month, year after year, not to mention the legal advice that such companies must seek to ensure that they are complying with the legislation.
  Clause 13 is a permissive measure, allowing the Secretary of State to make contributions in the form of grants for costs incurred by providers, but not requiring him to make such grants. Other amendments in this group deal with that concern.
  I shall finish by raising a serious concern about the basis on which the Minister has argued that we should not bother too much about those costs, contending that clause 13 is adequate to cover them. I believe that the Government think that those costs are marginal. Their consultation document certainly seemed to state that the costs were marginal. In Committee, the Minister provided an estimate of £20 million for the additional costs imposed on the industry as a result of clause 12, but I fear that that was only a wild stab in the dark. The changes that providers will have to implement will not be a one-off; changes may be required five or six times during the next decade, as technology moves on. More than one set of intercept capabilities might have to be introduced—for all we know, one a year, or even one a month, could be required. The costs could be massive, and £20 million is not a realistic estimate, given the fast-changing nature and rapid pace of technological innovation in the industry.
  The London Internet Exchange has underlined that point, arguing that
  Due to the inherently short lifecycle of internet—
  specifically, internet—
  infrastructure equipment, and the need to replace and enhance networks due to traffic growth, it is misleading
  to think that any changes and upgrades will be one-off actions, given that networks are
  constantly evolving and expanding and the need for additional engineering work to support the capability for interception will be ever present.
  Therefore, £20 million cannot be an adequate quantification of the costs in years to come.
  I hope that the Minister will reflect on that. Even if he does not resile from the £20 million figure, I hope that he will at least acknowledge that it cannot be a proper final estimate of the costs to which the industry will be subject. We require some assurance that the compensation system will be not subject to the Secretary of State's discretion, but that he will be under a duty to make payments to those who suffer huge hits, especially small and medium-sized enterprises. Given that the costs will not be one-off and that there could be myriad changes over the next decade, the Government should accede to our request that Parliament should, in years to come, be told what the costs are and what grants are being made to cover those costs.
  An annual mechanism for accountability to Parliament is the best way in which the House can protect the interests of this country's small and medium-sized enterprises. In that spirit of honest inquiry, we are willing the Government to listen to the operators that have lobbied the Opposition Members who have spoken about these matters. Ministers must do the right thing by an important world-class industry: they must make sure that it remains a world-class industry and is not driven offshore by uncertainty and ridiculous cost impositions.
  Mr. Charles Clarke: I am delighted to respond to the debate. I should first like to emphasise an important point that ran through the debate in Committee and that has been raised again this evening: that is, the Government's strong desire in everything we do in this sector to co-operate with industry. I repeat that we acknowledge that the arrangements and the apparatus established by the Bill will not succeed if that co-operation does not take place.
  These amendments deal with four main issues, the first of which is whether an order made under clause 12 should be subject to the negative or affirmative resolution procedure. Secondly, the amendments propose that a technical approval board should be set up to oversee the duties placed on communication service providers. Thirdly, they propose that users of communication services should be consulted about the technical requirements that will be imposed on service providers. Fourthly, the amendments are designed to provide greater clarity regarding the cost of interception and who will pay.
  All those issues were debated at length in Committee, at which time I indicated that I was sympathetic to the first of the amendments—the one dealing with the negative or the affirmative resolution procedure. I am pleased to report that, as the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) and other speakers graciously acknowledged, the Government have introduced amendments Nos. 24 and 28, which will have the effect of making a clause 12 order subject to the affirmative, rather than the negative, resolution procedure.
  In Committee, I made it equally clear that, although I fully agreed that any requirements placed on industry by part I should be properly considered and reasonable, I was not sympathetic to the concept of a technical approval board, which remains the most substantive issue dividing the House. I explained at length in Committee why I believe that the existing provisions of the Bill achieve the desired aim, but I shall attempt to do so again now, albeit without subjecting the House to the extensive debate that the Committee enjoyed, both on that subject and on matters closely related to it. I am happy to summarise the Government's position.
  7.45 pm
  The Bill already provides the framework for a three-stage process to arrive at a reasonable intercept capability in respect of individual communication service providers. Given the comments of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley), it is important to say which of those three stages would be removed if the technical approval board were to be established, in order to avoid an additional stage that carried implications of cost and bureaucracy.
  The first stage is the Bill itself, which sets out the principle that responsibility for maintenance of an intercept capability should fall to the provider of the communication services. That is an established principle long adhered to by public telecommunications operators. It leads to the need for the second stage, which is a thorough consultation exercise on the draft clause 12 order—the generic reasonable intercept requirements document.
  There is already a good deal of informal consultation going on, the debate on which has recently been informed by an independent report on the feasibility of intercepting
  570
  internet service providers. That report was commissioned by the Government and is now available on the Home Office website. Later this year, we shall publish a draft order for formal consultation with providers of communication services and regulatory bodies. Following the consultation, the Secretary of State will lay the order before Parliament. If Government amendment No. 24 is accepted, the order will be passed under the affirmative resolution procedure.
  That is the second stage, consisting of substantial debate. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds spoke about seeking genuine input from the industry, but we believe that that process has already commenced and will continue. The hon. Gentleman also talked about my feet being held to the fire; I am glad to learn that the mid-19th century traditions of the public schools—whether Rugby or another—are alive in the modern Conservative party.
  Mr. Ruffley: I did not go to Rugby.
  Mr. Clarke: I was not suggesting that the hon. Gentleman did; I was saying that the ethos still infects his party today. However, I wish to place on record the fact that I do not enjoy having my feet held to the fire—no part of me takes pleasure in that.
  Mr. Heald: I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, especially with an intervention that is not even amusing. He says that the technical approval board is not a suitable body; however, paragraph 5.6 of the Government's original consultation document states:
  The Government also proposes to appoint an independent body to provide impartial advice on how to balance the requirements of the agencies and CSPs. This should help to ensure that any requirements are reasonable, proportionate and do not place CSPs at a disadvantage.
  What did they mean by that?
  Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for bringing me back to earth after my far-ranging diversion following the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds. I shall come to the point raised by the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire shortly.
  The third phase of the procedure consists of the serving of individual notices on communication service providers. The notices will say what providers are expected to provide and give the time scale within which they should provide it. Individual notices will result from dialogue between the Government and the service providers themselves. Each notice will take account of the precise circumstances, much of which information will be commercially sensitive, and it will be consistent with the order passed by Parliament. The purpose of the notices will ensure consistency across the industry. I emphasise that individual notices will not be imposed by any external body—for example, a technical approval board—but will result from dialogue between the Government and service providers.
  The Opposition amendments would require a further step to take place—the approval of any requirements by a technical approval board. However, that presupposes that a notice has been served that is unreasonable, or that the service provider has been unable to comply with it. Either circumstance would be counterproductive and would not be brought about by the Government.

  571
  The effect would be that the service provider would be unable to comply, or would refuse to do so, which would place on the Secretary of State, if he wished to take enforcement action, the onus of convincing a court of the reasonableness and proportionality of the notice. It is difficult to see what a technical approval board could add to the process.
  What would enhance the process is the proposal in the second stage of the generic reasonable intercept requirements document, under which we have established, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the consultative body with which we are discussing these matters in a consistent and inclusive way. That was referred to in his document.
  If the proposal made by the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire were agreed by the House, I would be concerned about how the six members of the putative technical approval board would be selected, and how they would consider applications in commercial confidence. As I made it clear in Committee, I believe that those are difficult issues. We believe that the proper way is to consult the industry.
  The hon. Gentleman suggested that there was significant industry support for a technical approval board. However, in the responses to the consultation document, the industry did not generally support the idea of an independent industry body. We responded by setting up the general consultation, which has been described.
  In the light of what we have just heard, I want to place it on record that the Home Office has received no representations supporting the idea, despite our regular contact with the Federation of the Electronics Industry and the operators' group. The Home Office has day-to-day contact with the telecommunications operators that have a current intercept capability. They are understandably reluctant to share commercial secrets, although they willingly share interception methods where that does not compromise their commercial position.
  I am happy to examine the detailed correspondence and the survey that the hon. Gentleman has conducted on the matter. It is perfectly reasonable for him to do that, and I shall consider his conclusions. I emphasise that the Home Office has not had representations from the industry supporting the idea of a technical approval body. The responses to our original consultation document were not positive in that regard, either.
  Mr. Heald: The original proposal was that approval would be given by Oftel, which is quite different from what I am proposing.
  Mr. Clarke: I understand that. It is a fair point. I do not seek to second-guess the hon. Gentleman, but we have not had representations from the industry supporting the idea of a technical approval board.
  Mr. Heald: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again. If he thinks that the proposal is worth considering, is it possible for the Home Office to consult on it to satisfy itself?
  Mr. Clarke: The debate is public, and our discussions with the industry continue, both with individual ISPs and with the associations. I do not believe that a more beneficial situation would result from the imposition of the proposed body, on top of the three-stage process that I described, given that—I place this on record again—we are seeking agreement before introducing any order. That is why I must resist the hon. Gentleman's amendment.
  Amendment No. 12 proposes that users of communication services should be formally consulted about the order made under clause 12. As I explained in Committee, it is right that the wider public should have the opportunity to offer their opinion on the general use of interception and the circumstances in which it may be deployed. They took that up during the public consultation exercise, and they will have the opportunity to comment on the codes of practice when we consult on those later this year. Although we will publish the draft on the Home Office website for all to see, we have not extended the requirement on the Secretary of State to consult more widely than the Bill provides.
  On the Government amendments, I mentioned at the beginning of my speech that, following consideration of the representations, we tabled amendments Nos. 24 and 28 to make the clause 12 order subject to the affirmative, rather than the negative, resolution procedure. I hope that that will provide reassurance.
  As we acknowledged throughout the debate, and as the hon. Gentleman said in his intervention, cost is an extremely important consideration. I am conscious of the fact that there are serious questions relating to the costs and their apportionment between Government and industry.
  The Opposition amendment requiring that the Secretary of State "shall", rather than "may", make payments to communication service providers was discussed at length in Committee. The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Jane Kennedy), offered in Committee to include in the Bill a provision making clear the Government's intention to continue to meet marginal costs. In the light of that commitment, Opposition Members withdrew their previous identical amendment on the matter. The Government have now tabled, as promised, amendment No. 25, setting out our commitment to continue the payment of marginal costs. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support and acknowledgement of that.
  Amendment No. 13 demands that the Secretary of State report annually to Parliament providing information on what payments have been made to whom, and if payments have not been made, the reasons why that is so. We cannot support the amendment and hope that, on serious reflection, the Opposition will withdraw it.
  We believe that the amendment would fatally undermine the interception regime if it became publicly known which communication service providers were maintaining an intercept capability. On publication of the annual report, criminals would automatically move their custom to communication service providers that were not listed as having received contribution payments from the Government to provide interception assistance. Moreover, we do not think that CSPs would wish their individual assistance to be publicly acknowledged in such a manner.

  573
  Similarly, the specific reasons why payments have been made and the particular level at which they have been set in a particular case may touch on operational practices which could adversely impact on law enforcement practices and capabilities.
  I understand the hon. Gentleman's arguments with regard to the technical board, although I do not accept them, but I hope that on this issue, he will concede that his amendment would be damaging to law enforcement in this country, which I know is not his intention.
  New clauses 4 and 6 introduce a right of appeal within seven days of a notice being served that payment by the Government will not be made, or if the recipient of the notice considers the payment to be insufficient. Although I understand the intentions behind these new clauses, I do not consider them to be necessary.
  My final point refers to the Smith report. Hon. Members will be aware of the report, which has been produced by independent consultants and has been published on the Home Office website. The report discusses the various interception capabilities that may be required and the different costs involved in supplying those requirements. The document will be used to inform our consultations with industry on how costs should be allocated.
  Once consultations have been completed, we will set out in secondary legislation how costs will be allocated between industry and Government. Following on from that, decisions on specific cost allocation will be reached with each individual CSP by mutual agreement, after comprehensive consultations. That is exactly how decisions are currently reached—through mutual agreement on an individual basis. We have not encountered any calls from industry to change the current arrangements that I have just described.
  In the light of comments made in the House and outside, I shall comment on some of the proposed costings. There has been a suggestion that £34 million is the appropriate cost, as the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds mentioned. That assumes that all 400 ISPs will be obliged to possess an e-mail active intercept capability, amounting to £17 million, and furthermore that the 20 largest ISPs will be obliged to possess a semi-active or passive capability, amounting to another £17 million.
  I make it clear that that is not the intention at all. We do not currently require all public telecommunications operators to possess an intercept capability, and we do not expect to ask all ISPs to carry an intercept capability. We therefore consider the £30 million price tag as overestimating considerably the overall costs of providing a reasonable intercept capability.
  8 pm
  We have not rushed to put a price tag on the overall costs. However, figures in the report do not contradict the views in the regulatory impact assessment which was published with the Bill. It estimated that the costs would be less than £20 million for the whole industry. We debated that in Committee.
  We have been in continuing discussions with industry for a considerable time. The Smith report will be used as the basis for informed discussions with individual service providers and others. We welcome constructive
  574
  discussion with them. After we have consulted industry about those points and the specific point that the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire made, we have shall have a clear view of the potential costs. The hon. Gentleman will have noted that the Smith report concluded that the burden on industry to fulfil the Bill's obligations is "not onerous". I believe that that is so.
  I have tried to tackle as fully as possible the points that the amendments raised. I hope that hon. Members will support our amendments and reject those of the Opposition.
  Mr. Peter Luff: It is appropriate that my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) opened the debate because, on this occasion, the Opposition is like Oliver: we are asking for more. Sadly, the Minister has not acceded to that request, and we regret that.
  Let us deal first with the amendments that tackle the reimbursement of costs. While we welcome Government amendment No. 25, it does not go far enough. We cannot understand why the Government continue to resist amendment No. 13. Government amendment No. 25 appears to impose a duty on the Secretary of State. To change "may he thinks fit" to "shall" is eminently sensible. However, the absence of a right of appeal on reimbursement is worrying. The Minister spoke in reassuring terms about the total cost of the process, but I do not share his optimism.
  I draw the Minister's attention to the Smith report's clear finding that there is no single solution to the problem and that different costs will be imposed on different internet service providers. Although the Minister said that he would discuss with them the way in which the costs would be apportioned and the burdens that would be placed on them, the private sector does not always trust Governments.
  The Minister made a useful point about new clause 4 and the duty to report to the House. However, it is important to have some idea of the costs that the Bill will impose on the Government and the providers. Although we shall not press new clause 4 to a Division this evening, I strongly suspect that we shall revert to it in another place.
  The Minister spoke of a three-stage process for the technical approval board. The third stage was consulting with those who will be subject to the orders. That is all very splendid, but what if the dialogue, about which the Minister spoke so movingly, fails? What if the Government get it wrong? After all, Governments have been known to get it wrong. The Minister may have reservations about our proposed technical approval board, although Conservative Members and Liberal Democrat Members did not criticise it.
  The technical approval board is the right way forward and the Minister needs to reconsider the matter. He will have to undertake the functions that would be delegated to a technical approval board; he said that in the original consultation document. I am glad that he is prepared to reconsider information from my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire and I hope that he will return to the subject.
  We welcome the Government's change of heart on the order-making powers, which have worried the Opposition throughout the Bill's passage. However, the burdens that

  575
  the Bill imposes on individual providers remain a matter for discussion between the Government and those providers. The order, which is now subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, is general and permissive. The devil will indeed be in the detail.
  The Minister has underplayed the risk of undermining confidence in the e-commerce revolution in this country. He has failed to grasp the risk of discrimination—unintentional, I am sure—by the Government against individual service providers through the different burdens that technical requirements or costs place upon them.
  I am unable to give the Minister the assurance that he sought. We shall press new clause 2 to a vote. If time permitted, we would have like to press other amendments in the group. New clause 2 is a surrogate for our remaining deep anxieties about the sad inadequacy of the Government's response.
  Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 156, Noes 296.

  Division No. 181]

  [8.4 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Amess, David

  Faber, David

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Fabricant, Michael

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Fallon, Michael

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Baldry, Tony

  Flight, Howard

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Bercow, John

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Blunt, Crispin

  Fraser, Christopher

  Boswell, Tim

  Garnier, Edward

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Brady, Graham

  Gibb, Nick

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Gill, Christopher

  Brazier, Julian

  Gorrie, Donald

  Breed, Colin

  Gray, James

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Green, Damian

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Greenway, John

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Burns, Simon

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Burstow, Paul

  Hammond, Philip

  Butterfill, John

  Hancock, Mike

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Hawkins, Nick

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies(NE Fife)

  Heald, Oliver

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Cash, William

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Chapman, Sir Sydney(Chipping Barnet)

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Chidgey, David

  Hunter, Andrew

  Chope, Christopher

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Clappison, James

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth(Rushcliffe)

  Johnson Smith,

  Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Collins, Tim

  Key, Robert

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Cotter, Brian

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Cran, James

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Cunningham, Ms Roseanna (Perth)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Lansley, Andrew

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Leigh, Edward

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Letwin, Oliver

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Day, Stephen

  Lidington, David

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Evans, Nigel

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  576

  Luff, Peter

  Shepherd, Richard

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

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

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Spring, Richard

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Steen, Anthony

  Madel, Sir David

  Streeter, Gary

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Stunell, Andrew

  Malins, Humfrey

  Swayne, Desmond

  Maples, John

  Syms, Robert

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Norman, Archie

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Townend, John

  Öpik, Lembit

  Trend, Michael

  Ottaway, Richard

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Page, Richard

  Viggers, Peter

  Waterson, Nigel

  Paice, James

  Webb, Steve

  Paterson, Owen

  Wells, Bowen

  Pickles, Eric

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Prior, David

  Whittingdale, John

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Robathan, Andrew

  Wilkinson, John

  Robertson, Laurence

  Willetts, David

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Wilshire, David

  Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Ruffley, David

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Sanders, Adrian

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Mr. John Randall and

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Ainger, Nick

  Chaytor, David

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Clapham, Michael

  Allen, Graham

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Clelland, David

  Austin, John

  Clwyd, Ann

  Barnes, Harry

  Coaker, Vernon

  Battle, John

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Bayley, Hugh

  Cohen, Harry

  Beard, Nigel

  Coleman, Iain

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Colman, Tony

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Connarty, Michael

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

  Cooper, Yvette

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Corbett, Robin

  Benton, Joe

  Corston, Jean

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Cousins, Jim

  Berry, Roger

  Crausby, David

  Best, Harold

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Blizzard, Bob

  Cummings, John

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Davidson, Ian

  Browne, Desmond

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Burden, Richard

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Burgon, Colin

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

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

  Dawson, Hilton

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Denham, John

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Dismore, Andrew

  Cawsey, Ian

  Dobbin, Jim

  577

  Donohoe, Brian H

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Doran, Frank

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Dowd, Jim

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Drew, David

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Laxton, Bob

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Lepper, David

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Levitt, Tom

  Edwards, Huw

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Efford, Clive

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Ennis, Jeff

  Linton, Martin

  Etherington, Bill

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Lock, David

  Fisher, Mark

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Flynn, Paul

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  McDonnell, John

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Foulkes, George

  McNamara, Kevin

  Fyfe, Maria

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Gapes, Mike

  McWalter, Tony

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  McWilliam, John

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Mallaber, Judy

  Godsiff, Roger

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Goggins, Paul

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Martlew, Eric

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Maxton, John

  Grocott, Bruce

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Meale, Alan

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Hanson, David

  Miller, Andrew

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Mitchell, Austin

  Healey, John

  Moffatt, Laura

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Heppell, John

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Hesford, Stephen

  Morley, Elliot

  Hill, Keith

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

  Hinchliffe, David

  Hoey, Kate

  Mountford, Kali

  Hood, Jimmy

  Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

  Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Mudie, George

  Hope, Phil

  Mullin, Chris

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Norris, Dan

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Olner, Bill

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  O'Neill, Martin

  Hurst, Alan

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Hutton, John

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Illsley, Eric

  Pearson, Ian

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Jenkins, Brian

  Pike, Peter L

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Plaskitt, James

  Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Pond, Chris

  Jones, Ms Jenny(Wolverh'ton SW)

  Pope, Greg

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Kemp, Fraser

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Purchase, Ken

  Khabra, Piara S

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Kidney, David

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Radice, Rt Hon Giles

  578

  Rammell, Bill

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Rooney, Terry

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Timms, Stephen

  Rowlands, Ted

  Tipping, Paddy

  Roy, Frank

  Todd, Mark

  Ruane, Chris

  Touhig, Don

  Ruddock, Joan

  Trickett, Jon

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Truswell, Paul

  Salter, Martin

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Sawford, Phil

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Singh, Marsha

  Tynan, Bill

  Skinner, Dennis

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Watts, David

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Snape, Peter

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan(Swansea W)

  Soley, Clive

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Winnick, David

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Wood, Mike

  Stevenson, George

  Woolas, Phil

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Worthington, Tony

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Wray, James

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Mr. David Jamieson and

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Mr. Tony McNulty.

  Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 7

  FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A NOTICE TO DISCLOSE A KEY TO PROTECTED INFORMATION
  '(1) A person is guilty of an offence if—

  (a) with intent to impede access to protected information or the putting of that information into an intelligible form, he fails to comply in accordance with a section 46 notice with a requirement of that notice to disclose a key to protected information;

  (b) there are reasonable grounds for believing that possession of the key is necessary to obtain access to the protected information or the putting of that information into an intelligible form; and

  (c) he is a person who has, or who after the giving of the notice and before the time by which he was required to disclose the key, had possession of the key.

  (2) A person is guilty of an offence if—

  (a) he fails to comply in accordance with a section 46 notice with a requirement of that notice to disclose a key to protected information;

  (b) there are reasonable grounds for believing that possession of the key is necessary to obtain access to the protected information or the putting of that information into an intelligible form;

  (c) he a person—

  (i) who has had possession of the key; and

  (ii) who has, or who after the giving of the notice and before the time by which he was required to disclose the

  579
  key had, possession of information which would (either on its own or in combination with other information) enable possession of the key to be obtained; and

  (d) with intent to impede access to protected information or the putting of that information into an intelligible form, he did not before the time by which he was required to disclose the key, make a disclosure to the person to whom he was required to disclose the key of all such information in his possession which would (either on its own or in combination with other information) enable possession of the key to be obtained.

  (3) In proceedings against any person for an offence under this section it shall be a defence for that person to show—

  (a) in the case of an offence under subsection (1), that it was not reasonably practicable for him to make a disclosure of the key before the time by which he was required to do so;

  (b) in the case of an offence under subsection (2), that it was not reasonably practicable for him, before the time by which he was required to disclose the key, to make such a disclosure as is mentioned in subsection 2(d); and

  (c) where in either case it has since that time become reasonably practicable for him to make a disclosure of the key or of information which would (either on its own or in combination with other information) enable possession of the key to be obtained, he has made such a disclosure to the person to whom he was required to disclose the key.

  (4) Except in a case where there is no authorisation for the purposes of section 47, in proceedings for an offence under this section a person shall have a defence under subsection (3) only if he also shows that it was not reasonably practicable for him to comply with the requirement in the manner allowed by that section.
  (5) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—

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

  (b) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or to both.'.—[Mr. Simon Hughes.]

  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 25, Noes 293.

  Division No. 182]

  [8.16 pm

  AYES

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Brand, Dr Peter

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Breed, Colin

  Gorrie, Donald

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Hancock, Mike

  Burstow, Paul

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Öpik, Lembit

  Sanders, Adrian

  Chidgey, David

  Stunell, Andrew

  Cotter, Brian

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Cunningham, Ms Roseanna (Perth)

  Webb, Steve

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Mr. Bob Russell and

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Sir Robert Smith.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Allen, Graham

  Austin, John

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Barnes, Harry

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Battle, John

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Bayley, Hugh

  580

  Beard, Nigel

  Etherington, Bill

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Fisher, Mark

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

  Flynn, Paul

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Benton, Joe

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Berry, Roger

  Foulkes, George

  Best, Harold

  Fyfe, Maria

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Gapes, Mike

  Blizzard, Bob

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Goggins, Paul

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Browne, Desmond

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Burden, Richard

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Burgon, Colin

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Grocott, Bruce

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Cawsey, Ian

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Hanson, David

  Chaytor, David

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Clapham, Michael

  Healey, John

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Heppell, John

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Hesford, Stephen

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Hill, Keith

  Clelland, David

  Hinchliffe, David

  Clwyd, Ann

  Hoey, Kate

  Coaker, Vernon

  Hood, Jimmy

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Coleman, Iain

  Hope, Phil

  Colman, Tony

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Connarty, Michael

  Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Cooper, Yvette

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Corbett, Robin

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Corston, Jean

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Cousins, Jim

  Hurst, Alan

  Crausby, David

  Hutton, John

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Illsley, Eric

  Cummings, John

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Jenkins, Brian

  Dalyell, Tam

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Darvill, Keith

  Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Davidson, Ian

  Jones, Ms Jenny(Wolverh'ton SW)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

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

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Dawson, Hilton

  Kemp, Fraser

  Denham, John

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Dismore, Andrew

  Khabra, Piara S

  Dobbin, Jim

  Kidney, David

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Doran, Frank

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Dowd, Jim

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Drew, David

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Laxton, Bob

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Lepper, David

  Eagle, Maria (L 'pool Garston)

  Levitt, Tom

  Edwards, Huw

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Efford, Clive

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Ennis, Jeff

  Linton, Martin

  581

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

  Lock, David

  Rooney, Terry

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Roy, Frank

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Ruane, Chris

  McDonnell, John

  Ruddock, Joan

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  McIsaac, Shona

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  McNamara, Kevin

  Sawford, Phil

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McWalter, Tony

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  McWilliam, John

  Singh, Marsha

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Skinner, Dennis

  Mallaber, Judy

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Snape, Peter

  Martlew, Eric

  Soley, Clive

  Maxton, John

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Meale, Alan

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Stevenson, George

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Miller, Andrew

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Mitchell, Austin

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Moffatt, Laura

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Morley, Elliot

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

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)

  Mountford, Kali

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Mudie, George

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Mullin, Chris

  Timms, Stephen

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Todd, Mark

  Norris, Dan

  Touhig, Don

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Trickett, Jon

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Truswell, Paul

  Olner Bill

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Pearson, Ian

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Tynan, Bill

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Pickthall, Colin

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Pike, Peter L

  Wareing, Robert N

  Plaskitt James

  Watts, David

  Pollard, Kerry

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Pond, Chris

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Pope, Greg

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Winnick, David

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Wood, Mike

  Purchase, Ken

  Woolas, Phil

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Worthington, Tony

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Wray, James

  Radice, Rt Hon Giles

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Rammell, Bill

  Raynsford, Nick

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Mr. Tony McNulty and

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Mr. David Jamieson.

  Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 4

  POWER TO PROVIDE FOR LAWFUL INTERCEPTION
  Mr. Charles Clarke: I beg to move amendment No. 21, in page 6, line 21, leave out from "question" to end of line 24 and insert—

  '(d) the situation is one in relation to which such further condition as may be prescribed by regulations mad by the Secretary of State are required to be satisfied before conduct may be treated as authorised by virtue of this subsection; and

  (e) the conditions so prescribed are satisfied in relation to that situation.'.

  The intention of this subsection is to give effect to mutual legal assistance agreements. However, concerns were raised in Committee that in this part of the Bill there may be a loophole that would allow unwarranted interception to take place in the United Kingdom, perhaps to assist the authorities in another country, without the Secretary of State laying down the conditions in regulations.
  Although there was no intention of using this subsection in that way, the amendment will ensure that it has no effect until the Secretary of State makes the regulations that we have always envisaged.
  Amendment agreed to.

Clause 5

  INTERCEPTION WITH A WARRANT
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I beg to move amendment No. 60, in page 7, line 26, leave out "the Secretary of State" and insert "a judge".
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 61, in page 7, line 45, leave out "The Secretary of State" and insert "a judge".
  Amendment No. 62, in page 8, line 9, leave out "the Secretary of State" and insert "a judge".
  Amendment No. 63, in page 8, line 30, at end add—
  (7) The Secretary of State shall by order set out the procedures by which judges shall be selected for the purposes of this section.
  (8) The Secretary shall not make an order under this section unless a draft of the order has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House.'.
  Government amendment No. 64.
  Amendment No. 6, in clause 6, page 8, line 44, at end insert—
  '( ) the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency;'.
  Government amendment No. 22.
  Amendment No. 1, in page 9, leave out lines 4 and 5.
  Government amendment No. 23.
  Amendment No. 2, in page 9, line 14, at end add—
  '(6) An interception warrant shall not be issued in respect of any application made by or on behalf of a Permanent Under Secretary of State in the Ministry of Defence unless it has been authorised by a Secretary of State other than the Secretary of State for Defence'.

  583
  Amendment No. 3, in clause 7, page 9, line 18, after "official" add
  'who may not be an official responsible to, or subject to, the direction of the person applying for the warrant.'.
  Government amendment No. 27.
  Mr. Hughes: It would be unreasonable to say that the amendment breaks new ground. Not only did the Committee discuss who should authorise interception with a warrant; my reading of what was said then shows me that the Minister knew that we had engaged in a similar debate during the Committee stage of the Terrorism Bill, and on the Floor of the House. I was only mildly miffed to note from the report that my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) had done so much better than me in putting the case; I am only sorry that he cannot be here tonight to put it even more wonderfully.
  In the debate about who should be able to authorise an interception with a warrant in areas that are clearly important to the public, the interesting question is whether the division of powers means that it is better for the warrant to be issued by a politician—however quasi-judicially he may act—or by a judge. We have argued in regard to this Bill, as we argued in regard to the Terrorism Bill, that a judge should give that authority.
  The second sub-debate concerns the sort of judge who should be involved. Having read the report of the Committee debate, I appreciate that a judge picked at random from the whole range of circuit judges, with no particular experience, might not command sufficient confidence. That is why amendment No. 63 suggests that the judge should be
  selected for the purposes of this section.
  I suggest not only that there should be a panel from which the judge to authorise a warrant for interception is drawn, but that the panel should consist of senior judges. If the Government conceded the principle and we embarked on a debate about what sort of judge should be involved, I would argue that it should be a High Court judge rather than a circuit judge, because an application of this kind is not sought or granted all that often.
  8.30 pm
  The Government have argued that this should be a political, though quasi-judicial, decision. Although that has not been the unanimous view even of Conservative Members, in Committee the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) and others favoured a decision on the part of the Executive, on the basis that the judiciary could then be used to review the Executive's decision. I understand that argument. Our only core reason for believing that appropriately qualified, appropriately senior judges would be better is the fact that they not only are, but are seen to be, independent of political pressures.
  We are deciding who should authorise the interception of people's communications and, indeed, the invasion of people's privacy. We believe that, because this will often involve the organ of the state acting on behalf of, and accountable to, Ministers—frequently to the Home Secretary if the intelligence services are involved—it is better to separate the agencies who seek the authority
  584
  from the person who gives that authority. It is a straightforward case; we have made it before, and I hope that I have made it sufficiently clearly today. It applies to amendments Nos. 60, 61 and 62. Amendment No. 63 both provides for the process by which judges are selected, and provides that the order should be laid before both Houses of Parliament and require a positive resolution procedure.
  We welcome amendment No. 64. I understand that the Government tabled it after hearing my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) argue that there was confusion, and a potential conflict of interests, with the original proposal that, in relation to the Ministry of Defence, the decision should be made by a Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence—a Minister. He argued—and we are grateful to the Government for accepting his argument—that the decision should be made by the head of the relevant service: the Chief of Defence Intelligence. My right hon. Friend spoke on the basis of his experience and as a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee, and we are glad that his suggestion was accepted.
  We oppose amendment No. 6, tabled by Conservative Members.
  Mr. Heald: Shame!
  Mr. Hughes: It is not a shame at all; it is a shame that the amendment was tabled.
  There seems to be a dichotomy, a dilemma and a contradiction in the Tory party. The Tories are concerned about excessive powers in the Bill: their reasoned amendment, which we shall debate on Third Reading, puts that case. We have similar concerns—although we do not draw the same conclusions about how to proceed at this stage—but we do not think that the specific additional person who should have power to pry into people's affairs and intercept communications should be someone from the Benefits Agency. Benefit fraud exists, as does tax fraud and other fraud in society, but we must ensure that we authorise clearly, for particular purposes, the interception of communications.
  Clause 6 sets out not only individuals and persons who are entitled to make the application in this country—they are the heads of various services: the Security Service, the Secret Intelligence Service, GCHQ, the National Criminal Intelligence Service, the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, other chief constables, and commissioners of Customs and Excise; the head of defence intelligence is added in amendment No. 64—but the heads of the competent authorities elsewhere.
  Then we have the debate about whether the Secretary of State should have the power to add or not to add to those people. The Conservative party wants specifically to add the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. Such people are not in the same league as those other people, who work in services that, in essence, are to do with crime and the detection of crime. We believe that that is appropriate as a grouping. It would be inappropriate for the chief executive of the Benefits Agency to be added to that list.
  Government amendment No. 22 is a further amendment that we welcome. It follows along the lines of amendment No. 1, which we tabled and which was to leave out lines 4 and 5; the Government proposal is to leave out lines

  585
  4 to 9. It is all part of the tightening of the provision at the end of clause 6, which in our view should not allow the Government either to add or to take away at their own instigation the people who should be in that specialist list.
  We are grateful again that there has been a move from the Government. We accept that the balance is right. If we are going to ensure that the Government should not have the power to add at their own instigation, of course they should not have the power to take away at their own instigation, either. That matter should come before Parliament. The legislation should be amended if the Government want to make that change.
  That deals with Government amendment No. 23, too, which leaves amendments Nos. 2 and 3 and Government amendment No. 27. We have dealt with amendments Nos. 2 and 64, which replace a Permanent Secretary in the MOD with a Chief of Defence Intelligence. Amendment No. 3 is linked with that. Amendment No. 27 is the consequential Government amendment; it follows as a result of the earlier ones.
  The net effect of the group is to introduce welcome concessions by the Government, specifically in relation to the MOD and to restricting the power to add and to take away; all that is welcome. There is the other proposal from the Conservative party, about which I have indicated our view and for which Conservative Members, to be fair to them, have argued before. We have been around that circuit. That leaves us with the substantive debate about who is the appropriate body to authorise interception of communication.
  It is a matter of confidence. The working of the whole process depends on the authorities doing their job responsibly. Public approbation and confidence depend on the public believing that they trust the people who work the system. People say, "If you are not happy with the system, you can challenge it," but, by the nature of that particular part of public life, people may not know that they have been the subject of an application for a warrant, that a warrant has been issued and that someone has been intercepting communications, whether it be their e-mails, telephone calls or other communication.
  It is important to have the maximum confidence in the authorities. Fairly narrow and specific authorisations can be applied for under the legislation; authorisations in relation to communications at home. In relation to communications in this country, people have to apply for a specific purpose, but there are wide-ranging authorisations in relation to communications between countries.
  My understanding of the legislation is that, unamended, it will allow a general application to be made that is not specific to, for example, the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald), the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall) or me. However, an application could encompass us all if it has been made, for example, by NCIS in relation to information on drug dealing, or by Customs and Excise in relation to the importation or exportation of drugs. Such an application could be made because an authority believes that a dialogue on such matters is being conducted by mobile telephone, pager or e-mail between people in the United Kingdom and people in another jurisdiction.
  Such provision would be worrying, especially as people would not know that their communications are being intercepted unless they are informed of it or accidentally
  586
  discover it. We believe that it could be made less worrying by ensuring that the person authorising the interception is the most independent authority possible, who could ensure protection of the citizen's rights.
  I have never understood the great resistance to the idea—although I understand its logic—that authorisation should require judicial intervention. The United Kingdom has always required police to go to magistrates to obtain a search warrant, to ensure that that invasion of someone's privacy—which may entail breaking down a door, searching documents or stopping someone on the street using extraordinary powers—is authorised by someone who is independent of the investigation and prosecution processes.
  As I have gone round this course several times, I sense that the Government will not change their position on the issue. We have had no inkling that they are about to shift on it, and I do not read such a change in the Minister's body language. However, the case for a change has been made as strongly and persuasively in our consideration of this Bill as it has been in our consideration of previous legislation. Even if we do not win the argument today, I hope that we have flagged up the issue for our friends in the other place, and that they will come to the view that an appropriate level of the judiciary, rather than Ministers, should authorise the interception of normal communications between individuals. Whatever else is said about such an interception, it is an invasion by the state of an individual's liberty. It should be done only with the most stringent safeguards.
  Mr. Heald: As the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) knows, Conservative Members do not share his view on amendment No. 60—that a judge should decide whether an interception warrant is granted. As we have explained on previous occasions, the Opposition's view is that the Secretary of State—with the unique knowledge that he possesses, and the frequency with which he will be dealing with those issues—is best placed to make that decision. Interestingly, on Second Reading, the chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), very forcefully made the point that Secretaries of State take those responsibilities particularly seriously.
  We welcome some of the Government amendments in this group. We certainly welcome Government amendment No. 22, which restricts the list of those who may apply for an interception warrant by removing the catch-all clause 6(2)(k), which provides that an application may be made by or on behalf of
  any such other person as the Secretary of State may by order designate for the purposes of this subsection.
  We welcome the concession made in Government amendment No. 23, that the power to remove by order a person from the list should be deleted from the Bill.
  We also welcome the Government's decision to change the person responsible for defence-related applications to the Chief of Defence Intelligence. The argument on that matter emerged in Committee and was well made, particularly by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith).
  Amendment No. 6 seeks to add the chief executive of the Benefits Agency to the list. It is a recognition of the seriousness with which the Opposition view the issue of

  587
  benefit fraud, especially how it should be fought. We say that, in some ways, the Bill does not provide crime fighters with all that they need. The chief executive of the Benefits Agency seems to be the senior official responsible for the detection of benefit fraud and, as such, we believe that he should be included in the list.
  Benefit fraud is by far the most substantial crime by value committed in the United Kingdom. The Government say that it is so important that the security services can be involved in the worst cases, investigating organised crime. It is a pity, then, that the Benefits Agency should have to rely on the work of the National Criminal Intelligence Service or others to carry out its function.
  When I suggested in Committee that the relevant person should be the Under-Secretary at the Department of Social Security, the Minister said that I was wrong and that the provision should refer to the Benefits Agency—so here it is: how about it?
  8.45 pm
  Mr. Charles Clarke: I have appreciated throughout our proceedings the jovial and positive spirit of our exchanges.
  The intention of amendments Nos. 60 to 63 is to remove the power of the Secretary of State to issue interception warrants and to hand it to the judiciary—specifically to judges selected by the Secretary of State by order.
  As the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) acknowledged, the debate has a long history. I hear the arguments urged by those who advocate judicial involvement but, as I have said on several previous occasions, they do not persuade me. This is not only body language: it is words.
  I maintain the view that authorising interception involves particularly sensitive decisions that are properly a matter for the Executive. The warrant-issuing process is a key part of the line of accountability from the law enforcement and intelligence agencies to the Secretary of State and then to Parliament.
  There is certainly a place for judicial involvement, and that comes in the independent judicial oversight provided by the commissioners and the tribunal, who are there to provide a remedy if the Executive has acted outside its statutory powers. I do not believe, however, that judges can reasonably be expected to make decisions on what is or is not in the interests of national security, or that they are appropriately accountable.
  The European Court of Human Rights has endorsed the present practice of Executive authorisation, for example in Christie v. UK. In addition, the system was recently endorsed in the latest report of the Interception of Communications Act commissioner, an independent and senior member of the judiciary.
  I can assure hon. Members that the present system continues to work well, has safeguards built into it and is subject to judicial scrutiny. I hope that hon. Members will not press the amendments to a vote. If not, I ask my hon. Friends to oppose them.
  There is more substantial debate to be had on the matter, but I do not want to detain the House on the point, as we debated it at great length not only in Committee
  588
  and on Second Reading on this Bill but in Committee and on Report on the Terrorism Bill. I have summarised what I think are the key points.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: There is a reasonable concern about one matter with which the Minister has not dealt. When the agency that applies for the warrant is one for which the Secretary of State is responsible, it would appear that both the applicant, and the person applied to, have the same state interest. That would be the most obvious instance of lack of independent adjudication.
  Mr. Clarke: As the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) said earlier, Secretaries of State of all parties have taken seriously their responsibility to scrutinise such requests for warrants most carefully.
  Mr. Hughes indicated assent.
  Mr. Clarke: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman accepts that, as he did earlier. That scrutiny process is genuine, and I do not believe that judges can reasonably be expected to make judgments on what is in the interests of national security. That is quite properly a matter for the relevant Secretary of State. I understand that other countries have other practices, but we have come to the conclusion that I set out.
  I was grateful for the support of Opposition spokesmen on Government amendment No. 64. We have taken seriously the points made in Committee by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and a subsequent letter from the Intelligence and Security Committee reflecting that discussion. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence for the constructive way in which he has addressed those concerns by agreeing to our proposals.
  In relation to the warranty proposals, we have carefully considered how to make it clearer that MOD procedures will possess sufficient checks and balances. I have written to members of the Intelligence and Security Committee explaining how we have sought to deal with that. Government amendment No. 64 proposes that the Chief of Defence Intelligence at the MOD should now be the designated office with authority to apply for an interception warrant. It would then fall to a separate unit within the MOD to process and check the warrant application, as happens for similar applications that go to the Home Secretary and other Secretaries of State. I hope that that solution satisfies the concerns that were raised.
  Amendment No. 6 concerns the Benefits Agency. I am grateful to the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire for technically correcting his amendment in the spirit of the Bill. However, we have debated the issues already. I do not recall my words in Committee in full, but I said that our objections were not just to the incorrect technical wording but to points of substances. I sympathise with the intention to put proper and appropriate measures in place to combat benefit fraud, but providing the Benefits Agency with the power to apply for, and carry through, interception warrants is neither appropriate or necessary.
  If the police wish to intercept a communication, they must apply through the National Criminal Intelligence Service. For that reason, individual police forces are not able to apply in their own right. Similarly, if the DSS is working on a serious fraud inquiry with the police, it can

  589
  either apply through the police, via NCIS, for an interception warrant or it can apply to NCIS directly. There is therefore no need for the Benefits Agency to be added to that list in its own right. It does not possess the technical capability to intercept communications and we have no intention of giving it that capability. We have not received a formal request from the DSS or Benefits Agency for them to be considered as an intercepting agency. The hon. Gentleman makes a sincere point that we need to make available whatever powers we can to deal with benefit fraud, but the systems that we have in place are competent to do so. I hope that he will not press his amendment; if he is does so, I urge my colleagues to reject it.
  I urge hon. Members not to press amendments Nos. 1 and 2, and hope that they will welcome the Government amendments that we have tabled in their place. I understand that that is acceptable. We have listened to what has been said, so amendments Nos. 22 and 23 remove from the Bill the power of the Secretary of State to designate by order persons to be added to, or removed from, the list of those who may apply for an interception warrant. That goes further than amendment No. 1, which states that the Secretary of State may not by designated order add names to the list only. Government amendment No. 27 is purely consequential.
  Amendment No. 2 calls for a Secretary of State other than the Secretary of State for Defence to authorise MOD warrants. Government amendment No. 64 deals with that point adequately.
  The intention behind amendment No. 3 is to ensure that the senior official authorised in clause 7 to issue an interception warrant in urgent cases or under international mutual assistance provisions should not be responsible to, or under the direction of, the person applying for that warrant. The amendment is not necessary for several reasons. First, in an urgent case, the Secretary of State has already
  expressly authorised the issue of the warrant.
  Therefore, it is of no concern who directs the senior official. He is only issuing the warrant after the Secretary of State has already agreed it. Secondly, the other reason for a senior official issuing a warrant is to action a request on international mutual assistance grounds. The amendment does not apply to that case for the simple reason that the senior official is not responsible to, or under the direction of, the competent authorities of a foreign power.
  I urge hon. Members not to press their amendments, in some cases because the Government have met their concerns and in others because the concerns expressed are misplaced. If they do press them, I urge the House to reject the amendments.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: We accept that Government amendments Nos. 22 and 23 cover amendment No. 1. As the Minister hoped, we are happy to accept Government amendment No. 64, which covers amendment No. 2. I hear what the Minister says about amendment No. 3 and he has a reasonable argument. We may come back to the issue in the other place after reflection.
  In relation to amendment No. 60 and the associated amendments, we anticipated that the Government would not budge. I do not propose to delay the House again on
  590
  a principle about which it has made its view clear on several recent occasions. The Minister acknowledged that judicial authority is given in other countries, and that in some countries the national security consideration can be separated and given to Ministers, while judges deal with other considerations. A third category exists, in which countries have a twin-track authorisation procedure.
  I accept that the Minister is right to say that some external approval has been given to the process that the Government have traditionally used, and that it is supported in various quarters.
  I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 6

  APPLICATION FOR ISSUE OF AN INTERCEPTION WARRANT
  Amendments made: No. 64, in page 8, line 44, leave out paragraph (i) and insert—
  '(i) the Chief of Defence Intelligence;'.
  No. 22, in page 9, leave out lines 4 to 9.
  No. 23, in page 9, line 13, leave out subsection (5).—[Jane Kennedy.]

Clause 12

  MAINTENANCE OF INTERCEPTION CAPABILITY
  Amendment made: No. 24, in page 14, line 41, at end insert—
  '(6A) The Secretary of State shall not make an order under this section unless a draft of the order has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House.'.—[Jane Kennedy.]

Clause 13

  GRANTS FOR INTERCEPTION COSTS
  Amendment made: No. 25, in page 15, line 28, at end insert—
  '( ) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to ensure that arrangements are in force for securing that persons on whom obligations are imposed by virtue of an order under section 12 receive, by way of payments under this section, such contributions as he thinks appropriate towards the costs incurred, or likely to be incurred, by them in complying with requirements to provide assistance with giving effect to interception warrants.'.—[Jane Kennedy.]

Clause 17

  EXCEPTIONS TO SECTION 16
  Jane Kennedy: I beg to move amendment No. 49, in page 19, line 4, after "Tribunal", insert—
  '( ) any proceedings on an appeal or review for which provision is made by an order under section 58(7);'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 50, 84 to 86, 51 to 53, 42 and 43.
  Jane Kennedy: These amendments all deal with the jurisdiction of the tribunal, but amendments Nos. 83 to 86 relate to the tribunal's jurisdiction in Scotland. The amendments would extend the tribunal's human rights jurisdiction to include any directed or intrusive

  591
  surveillance, and any conduct or use of a covert human intelligence source, where any of these activities take place in Scotland.
  However, I must advise the House of something about which we became aware this morning. At one point, there had been the possibility that a separate Scottish tribunal would be established, but the Scottish Executive has considered the matter and decided to join the tribunal arrangements for the rest of the United Kingdom. The amendments should ensure that a proper avenue of redress is available wherever in the UK any investigatory powers are used.
  We have discovered that, to be effective, the amendments require one further amendment, which I believe to be of a minor and technical nature, to clause 56. It has not been possible to table the necessary amendment for today's debate, as the notice was too short, but we intend to table the last in this set of amendments when the Bill is considered in another place. That will ensure that the tribunal's jurisdiction is extended to Scotland, in accordance with the policy agreed here and in Edinburgh.
  Mr. Heald: The amendments are not contentious. The Parliamentary Secretary has outlined the technical problem that has been encountered, but the Opposition do not consider that that should delay matters. We hope that the appropriate amendment can be made in the other place.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I, too, shall deal with the Scottish point. I am in no position to disagree with the Scottish Executive: if it has agreed the matter, it must be right.
  I have not had an opportunity to be briefed on the development set out by the Parliamentary Secretary, but my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) is the Deputy First Minister in Scotland, with responsibility for this matter there. We have worked with him on those areas of legislation that are devolved to Scotland, on those on which Scotland has allowed the Westminster legislation to be used, and on those about which there is agreement that legislation should apply across the UK. For students of devolution, this Bill has all three options available, and it provides an interesting case study.
  However, I have one question for the Parliamentary Secretary. Amendments Nos. 42 and 43 provide for interim rules governing the tribunal, but I am not clear why we need interim rules. There may be a good reason. It struck me that another group of amendments, to be debated later, contain an interim provision. There should be no need for interim rules; it should be possible to have draft rules and then move straight to the formal ones. Amendment No. 43 provides for a 40-day period. I am open to persuasion, but I would be grateful to know why interim rules are being proposed.
  I think that amendment No. 52 is the Government's response to some of the concerns expressed in Committee by my hon. Friends, for which we are grateful. We support amendments Nos. 49 and 50.
  9 pm
  Jane Kennedy: The hon. Gentleman is right about amendment No. 52. Amendments Nos. 42 and 43 relate to the tribunal rules for which clause 60 provides. We had a lengthy discussion in Committee about the order-making powers in the Bill. It is important that the tribunal established by the Bill is able to hear any complaints as soon as the surveillance provisions come into force. For the tribunal to function, rules must be made governing its procedure. They will require parliamentary approval under the affirmative resolution procedure.
  The amendments allow such rules to be made by the Secretary of State in the absence of Parliament between the Bill receiving Royal Assent and Parliament reconvening after the summer recess. That is their sole purpose. It is necessary to ensure that the tribunal is functioning when the surveillance provisions come into force before 2 October, when the Human Rights Act 1998 is implemented. Only the initial order and rules could be made without Parliament's approval. They would in any case need to be approved by Parliament, as made clear by the amendments, within 40 days of being signed.
  Mr. Hughes: That is entirely logical, but I cannot quite work out the maths. If we break, as we normally do, at the end of July and come back, as we normally do, in October, that means a gap of more than 40 days, even given the date of 2 October, when the Human Rights Act is implemented. Should not the amendments provide for a period longer than 40 days? I am not trying to make the Minister's case for her—I am happy to have a bridging period, but we must get it right.
  Jane Kennedy: The hon. Gentleman is right. However, I would not want to presume when the House will rise or reconvene. The hon. Gentleman's point is valid; I will check to make sure that the 40-day period is adequate, but the intention is quite clear in the amendments.
  Amendment agreed to

Clause 18

  OFFENCE FOR UNAUTHORISED DISCLOSURES
  Amendment made: No. 36, in page 21, line 44, leave out "authorized-" and insert—
  'confined to a disclosure made to the Interception of Communications Commissioner or authorised—
  ( ) by thatCommissioner;'.—(Mr. Betts.]

Clause 21

  OBTAINING AND DISCLOSING COMMUNICATIONS DATA
  Mr. Heald: I beg to move amendment No. 14, in page 23, line 45, leave out from "health" to end of line 3 on page 24.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 58, in page 24, line 21, at end insert—
  '( ) Communications data obtained on grounds falling within those specified in subsection (2) shall not be subsequently used or disclosed for any other purpose.'
  Mr. Heald: The amendment deals with the purposes for which communications data may be obtained. Many

  593
  commentators in the industry and individuals who have contacted me have made the point that clause 21 is a wide provision-especially subsection (2)(h), which provides that the Secretary of State may specify any purpose for obtaining communications data and goes beyond what is reasonable or in the Government's interests.
  Great concern has been expressed about the very wide terms of clause 21. It is believed that, when taken with clause 24(1)(f)—which provides that the Secretary of State can specify any public authority as designated for the purposes of obtaining communications data—any public authority could obtain communications data for any purpose. Such matters would obviously be subject to an element of scrutiny, but the uncertainty of the position has created concern, especially among City institutions. I do not believe that the Minister is uncertain about what he wants to achieve, so it seems a pity that he has not nailed his colours to the mast by saying what the purposes are, as he has done in clause 6, in which he has been prepared to list those who may apply for an interception warrant. Why not list the purposes without adding the catch-all?
  Friendship tree technology exists today—one can learn a lot on these Bills, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If one has enough communications data, one can use that technology to find out in tremendous detail who communicates with whom. One can find out all sorts of interesting information about a person's life. It is an invasive form of investigation, not just a matter of finding out who telephoned whom and when, but of finding out in great detail about their internet communications and a range of other communications.
  That is a valuable tool if used against a serious criminal, but the danger is that it will be used against others. If City institutions fear that they will be subject to it, there will come a point when we lose the benefits because the industry will not function effectively. Vodafone, one of the leading players in the field, has expressed concerns, saying that the underlying assumption is that communications data access represents a lesser intrusion into the rights of privacy than interception does. That is not necessarily true.
  Verification is also a concern, as I have said before. Verification of a request for communications data is important, and the protections that we have already discussed must be provided. Finally, I cite again what Philip Virgo said in his e-mail, which was copied to the Minister. He wrote:
  Most of the City institutions do not appear particularly concerned by the Human Rights issues. Their main concern is over the uncertainty as to who will have what rights of access to their data and communications and the risk of criminal access under guise of a warrant or via the law enforcement agencies themselves.
  He also points out that all organisations have occasional bad apples—people who do not live up to the standards of the institution. That is as true of law enforcement authorities as it is of any other organisation, although one would hope that they would take great steps to avoid it. These things happen, and City institutions, in which secrecy and confidentiality of information is of the utmost importance, see giving information to the security forces or any law enforcement agency as a security risk.
  594
  We need proper protections. Saying that communications data may be obtained for any purpose that is specified by any public authority that the Minister chooses to designate simply is not good enough. We ask the Minister to think again.
  Mr. Harry Cohen: Amendment No. 58 is linked with amendment No. 14, which was so well moved by the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald). He was right to point out the importance of communications data and the invasive nature of its collection, analysis and use—or misuse. I pay credit to the hon. Gentleman for what he said.
  My probing amendment states that communications data
  obtained on grounds falling within those specified in subsection (2) shall not be subsequently used or disclosed for any other purpose.
  I want to explore the extent to which communications data collected for one purpose could subsequently be used for another. In Committee, my hon. Friend the Minister stated that such communications data cannot be used for other purposes, such as council tax and the collection of vehicle excise duty. I am not so sure about that—as I shall explain to the House.
  Let us suppose that the police obtain communications data, subject to proper authorisation procedures, codes of practice and other notices required by the Bill. Under section 29 of the Data Protection Act 1998, a disclosure from the police can be made if they are satisfied that the failure to disclose would prejudice
  the collection of any tax or duty or of any imposition of a similar nature.
  During the debates on that measure in 1998, it was held that that provision included council tax and vehicle excise duty.
  If the police obtained communications data in accordance with chapter II, there would seem to be nothing to stop them—at a later stage—volunteering the data, by virtue of section 29 of the 1998 Act, for example, to local authorities for the collection of council tax, to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency or, of course, for use by the Inland Revenue or Customs and Excise. As far as I can see, that is lawful; it is permitted under section 29 of the Data Protection Act. If my interpretation of the law is wrong, I hope that my hon. Friend will tell me clearly, so that my concern can be put to rest.
  What is more likely is that another Department will be able to exercise powers to demand communications data from the organisation that obtained them. For instance, I am sure that other legislation covering the operations of the Inland Revenue, the Department of Social Security, the immigration authorities or Customs and Excise would permit a demand for such data. Indeed, under the previous Conservative Government, the immigration authorities required local authorities to provide them with such information.
  I thus conclude that it is possible for communications data to be demanded for other purposes after its collection—if that is permitted by other legislation. However, if I am wrong, I hope that the Minister will state clearly that no other legislation would require such subsequent disclosure. If the Minister cannot provide that assurance, I must conclude that such further use is a possibility and is legal.

  595
  If I am correct, the authorisation process in chapter II would be irrelevant to the protection of privacy, because communications data could be volunteered to, or demanded by, other bodies at a later stage. An official could legitimately authorise collections of communications data and keep proper records only for them subsequently to be used for another purpose. If that is true, the relevant commissioner, who examined the authorisation process, would not know of such disclosures; nor would the telecommunications operator or the public. To put it bluntly, the whole authorisation process and all the protections afforded by chapter II could be reduced to a meaningless sham, because there would be no record of subsequent disclosures as part of the authorisation process.
  That is an unacceptable prospect—hence my probing amendment. Its purpose is to stop any subsequent use that was not authorised at the time of the collection of the communications data.
  In Committee, I expressed a difference of view with the Minister on communications data. He seemed to regard the matter as being not particularly important—certainly in respect of other forms of data and information collected. There is a danger that he and the Government are being too casual about communications data. There is potential for misuse and there should be proper controls.
  9.15 pm
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I am grateful to the hon. Members for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) and for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen) for raising this important subject and for giving us the opportunity to have a short and important debate on it.
  I shall discuss the issues in the order that they were raised. Liberal Democrats are sympathetic to amendment No. 14, which was moved by the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire. It would remove the general additional justification for the acquisition of communications data.
  As the hon. Gentleman spoke, I reflected on a thought that I have had before. It is generally accepted that the acquisition of data on patterns of communication can be as intrusive as the interception of the communication itself. For example, the interception of a letter or a telephone call might, in a sense, be no worse than someone knowing whom one phones and how often one does that. If that process is carried out illegitimately, it is a modern form of stalking. Someone's telecommunications movements can be followed in the same way as someone else's physical movements are followed. That can be equally threatening and oppressive.
  The tracking of telecommunications movements can be carried out comprehensively. In one of my meetings with the police since becoming Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman, I examined how they do that for the perfectly proper purpose of criminal investigation. They monitor dealings between persons A and B who might be plotting or arranging a meeting to hand over illegal goods or imported drugs. Every phone call and communication will be monitored. The methods used to get round the monitoring are becoming ever more imaginative, but technology continues to catch up. It is important that the police have the power to monitor communications, and that is why our general premise from the beginning was to support the Bill. However, not just the interception of
  596
  communications, but the management and control of that interception must be brought within the framework of legislation.
  We welcome the proposal that data should be collected only if that is justified by the seven specific grounds in clause 21. We should not provide for the general and completely unqualified ground that is outlined in subsection (2)(h). It is worth noting that clause 5 does not give such a wide power to Secretaries of State or to those who grant warrants on the interception of data. Although it provides a more general provision to cover the protection of national security, the detection or protection of serious crime or to safeguard the economic well-being of the United Kingdom, it qualifies that power. Subsection(3)(d) states:
  for the purpose, in circumstances appearing to the Secretary of State to be equivalent to those in which he would issue a warrant by virtue of—
  a crime prevention or detection provision—
  giving effect to the provision of any international mutual assistance agreement.
  Although that is a wide power, it is not unlimited in the same way as the power in clause 21.
  On amendment No. 58, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead, it is right, in principle, to make sure that information obtained, for example, for the prevention or detection of crime or in the interests of public safety should not be generally available so that it can be shipped from one agency to another. The hon. Gentleman's remarks were considered and cautious when he said that it was a probing amendment and it is worth raising the issue at this stage. However, if he and the House are not satisfied by the Minister's reply, we or the other place should consider returning to the subject later. It is important that there is a specific power that authorises the interception of communications only for a specific purpose. Once we have obtained information, we should not allow it to be passed around the system.
  I have a question for the Minister about a matter that was not dealt with earlier. I am not aware that the various notices that can be applied for, and which we debated when we dealt with part III, are legally time limited and therefore automatically lapse after a certain period. That issue is related to the implications of the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead. If we introduce a power to acquire information, we should not only prevent it from being used for any purpose but make sure that it is not given indefinitely and that there is a requirement to have it renewed.
  Where in the Bill is there a provision to end the power given by a warrant or other measure? If there is no such provision, does not the Minister consider that we ought to amend the Bill to limit the duration of a power, in the same way that search warrants and other warrants obtained by the police are time limited?
  Mr. Charles Clarke: Before I respond to specific points, I must comment on the quote from Philip Virgo given by the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald). Mr. Virgo's e-mail said:
  On Thursday I attended a City event and had my ear bent as to why the debate on the RIP Bill was on the Civil Liberties issues with little/no mention of the threat to the UK position in international business-to-business e-business and the City Institutions and Large Multinationals who—

  597
  he claims—
  are quietly moving…operations out of the UK to avoid being caught by the Bill.
  I emphasise, as I have tried to do throughout these debates, that any perception that we are concerned only with civil rights issues, and not with e-commerce business issues, is wrong. We have sought to address a wide variety of issues with many contacts, including the European Informatics Market.
  The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire quoted Mr. Virgo's statement that
  Most of the City institutions do not appear particularly concerned by the Human Rights issues.
  I do not agree. City institutions generally are concerned about human rights issues, and obviously have different views about how they should be addressed. I want to put on the record the fact that the Government do not accept Mr. Virgo's assessment, first, of the debate in general and, secondly, of the importance of human rights issues to commercial organisations.
  Mr. Heald: The Minister will agree that throughout the proceedings on the Bill, there has been considerable discussion of the position of business and the way in which it is influenced—I have gone on about that a lot. Does the Minister have any evidence in connection with Mr. Virgo's point about companies leaving the UK?
  Mr. Clarke: None at all. I have heard that assertion only from Mr. Virgo. It would be of concern if it were true, but we do not have evidence of that. Obviously, we consider issues of the overall commercial environment with colleagues from the Department of Trade and Industry. The reverse of the assertion is true: the regime that we are establishing will increasingly be seen as one that strengthens e-commerce, rather than weakens it, because it strengthens public confidence in the whole of e-commerce.
  Amendment No. 14 is an attempt to restrict the purposes for which communications data may be required from eight to five. That matter was fully debated in Committee, but I am happy to restate the main reasons why we need to retain the three purposes in question. Clause 21(2)(f) includes the purpose
  of assessing or collecting any tax, duty, levy or other imposition,
  and so on. That is a reflection of section 29(4) of the Data Protection Act 1998, and although not used extensively, it is currently used by agencies such as Customs and Excise to investigate the shadow economy.
  An example of a situation in which such a provision is used is when flyers promising cheap cigarettes or tobacco, and giving a phone number to call, are pushed through letter boxes. An investigation at that early stage may very well not be a criminal investigation, but merely to ascertain whether the supplier had a tax liability. Another example is that of a tradesman who advertises in a newspaper, but is not VAT registered. If he earns enough to advertise, the chances are he is close to the VAT threshold and might have a tax liability, but an investigation would not necessarily be a criminal investigation.
  The second purpose, set out in clause 21(2)(g), is that of
  in an emergency…preventing death or injury or any damage to a person's physical or mental health.
  598
  In Committee, I gave an example of a case in which that might apply: a child telephones the emergency services to say that a parent has collapsed, but is unable to give the address. I agree that such cases do not often occur, but they are important. I emphasise that the whole purpose of the Bill is to extend the protection of the European convention on human rights.
  The most serious of the three points relates to clause 21(2)(h), which contains the broadest framework, starting with the words "for any purpose". Although I accept that that provision means that new purposes could be added fairly easily, I should like to make two points. First, we are dealing with a new area of legislation and, despite all the effort that my colleagues and others have put into the Bill, we are still not absolutely certain that the existing purposes cover everything which may be required. It is possible that the purposes will have to be extended in future, especially if other Government Departments apply to be subject to those provisions, rather than relying on the Data Protection Act. However, I stress that the Government have absolutely no plans to do that at present. My second point should reassure anyone who believes that subsection (2) gives the Government a blank cheque. It does not, since any new purpose would, of course, be limited by article 8 of the European convention on human rights; that imposes a serious restriction.
  If I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen) or any other member of the Committee the impression that I do not consider communications data important, I did so inadvertently: I believe that such data are important. However, during our discussion in Committee of the hierarchy of intrusion of different forms of data collection—including someone standing in one's front room, someone listening to one's phone conversations and so on—I suggested that the collection of communications data is not as individually intrusive as some of the other forms of surveillance. I firmly believe that communications data are important, and if I gave the contrary impression in Committee, I correct it now.
  The amendment would restrict the purposes for which communications data may be used or disclosed to purposes for which it may be required under the Bill. Although the Bill does not address that particular issue, we believe that to a large extent, the purpose of the amendment is met by the Data Protection Act. My hon. Friend made that point in Committee. Several of the data protection principles are relevant, especially the second principle, which is that
  personal data shall be obtained only for one or more specified purpose, and shall not be further processed in any manner incompatible with that purpose or those purposes.
  Processing includes using or disclosing. That clear principle offers protection.
  I do not believe, therefore, that there is any need to add further restrictions on the use or disclosure of communications data, although I perceive the merit in explaining the relevant data protection principles in the code of practice to ensure the proper handling of communications data. The Government accept the principle that data should be used only for the specific purpose for which they are collected.
  It is true that there is an exemption for national security under the Data Protection Act. However, each of the three security and intelligence agencies is bound by statutory

  599
  arrangements under the Security Service Act 1989 and Intelligence Services Act 1994. Those arrangements mean that they may not disclose material that they have obtained except for the purpose of properly discharging their functions, or for the purpose of criminal proceedings. I hope that I have now responded adequately to the points that were clearly made and well put by my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead, and that he draws comfort from my remarks.
  The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) asked about the question of time—an interesting and characteristically existential point. I have no detailed answer to offer, but I believe that we discussed that point in Committee when, if memory serves, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) raised it. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman if he wants me to, but I believe that data are collected for a specific purpose, not for a specific period of time; the key question is what period of time is appropriate for that purpose. As I said, we debated the matter at length in Committee, and I shall not repeat what I said there on the hon. Gentleman's final point. I shall write to him further if my remarks have been misleading.
  9.30 pm
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I, too, stand to be corrected, especially in relation to part III and clause 47. I understand that there may still be an unanswered time question.
  With regard to the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen), did the Minister say that the Data Protection Act 1998, rather than any code or subsidiary legislation, was clear about all such

  RELEVANT PUBLIC AUTHORITIES DESIGNATED FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTIONS 27 AND 28

  Public Authority

  Directed Surveillance

  Use of Covert Sources

  Police forces, including:

  ✓

  ✓

  British Transport Police

  ✓

  ✓

  Ministry of Defence Police

  ✓

  ✓

  Service Police

  ✓

  ✓

  National Crime Squad

  ✓

  ✓

  National Criminal Intelligence Service

  ✓

  ✓

  HM Customs &Excise

  ✓

  ✓

  matters? I would be troubled if it were suggested that something other than legislation were being prayed in aid as a higher authority than the Bill, which will become law.
  Mr. Clarke: I believe that the Data Protection Act 1998 is clear. That is why I quoted the data protection principle established in it. I believe that it is compatible with other legislation, including the Bill. It is incumbent on us to explain the relevant data protection principles in the code of practice, to make them clear to everyone.
  I hope that on that basis, the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire and my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead will withdraw their amendments.
  Mr. Heald: We are not entirely satisfied, but I do not intend to press the amendment to a Division. The matter may be raised again in another place. Accordingly, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 29

  PERSONS ENTITLED TO GRANT AUTHORISATIONS UNDER ss. 27 AND 28
  Mr. Maclean: I beg to move amendment No. 59, in page 31, line 39, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
  '(4) In subsection (1) "relevant public authority" means any of the organisations listed in Schedule (Relevant public authorities)
  (4A) The Secretary of State may by order add any other public authority to Schedule (Relevant public authorities).
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendments Nos. 40, 41, 65 and 45.
  Amendment No. 5, in page 47, line 11, leave out Clause 44.
  Government amendments Nos. 46 to 48 and 44.
  New schedule 2—Public Authorities Designated for the Purposes of Sections 27 and 28—

  Public Authority

  Directed Surveillance

  Use of Covert Sources

  Security Service

  ✓

  ✓

  Intelligence Services (Secret Intelligence Service, GCHQ)

  ✓

  ✓

  Ministry of Defence/Armed Forces

  ✓

  ✓

  Home Office: Prison Service

  ✓

  Immigration Service

  ✓

  ✓

  Department of Social Security: Benefits Agency

  ✓

  Inland Revenue

  ✓

  ✓

  Department of Health: Medical Devices Agency

  ✓

  Food Standards Agency

  ✓

  Medicine Control Agency

  ✓

  High Security Hospitals

  ✓

  NHS Estates

  ✓

  NHS Fraud

  ✓

  Royal Pharmaceutical Society

  ✓

  Department of Trade and Industry: Radio Communications Agency

  ✓

  Export Services Directorate

  ✓

  Post Office

  ✓

  Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions: Transport Security (Transec)

  ✓

  Vehicle Inspectorate

  ✓

  ✓

  Mr. Maclean: Amendment No. 59 attempts to put straightforward honesty and openness into clause 29, and to comply with the normal parliamentary conventions.
  We had an interesting morning in Committee when we considered clause 29, which deals with persons entitled to grant authorisations under sections 27 and 28—the sections covering directed surveillance and covert surveillance. We were innocuously going through the clause, and when we reached the part that stated that the people with the power would belong to "relevant public authorities", we saw which public authorities were listed.
  There were the big boys—the heavy players that we would expect to have powers of directed surveillance and covert surveillance. They are the same as those with which we had dealt earlier, which also have the power of
  604
  intrusive surveillance—police forces, the National Criminal Intelligence Service, the National Crime Squad, the various intelligence agencies, the Ministry of Defence, any of Her Majesty's forces and, of course, the VAT man, the commissioners of Customs and Excise.
  The clause went on to add:
  any such public authority not falling within paragraphs (a) to (g) as may be specified for the purposes of this section by an order made by the Secretary of State.
  All my hon. Friends and I—and, I think, almost everyone in the Committee Room—assumed that the wording of that subsection, referring to any other public authority, was designed so that if the Secretary of State had missed out one little authority in the foregoing list, or if NCIS had changed its name, or the National Crime Squad had

  605
  amalgamated with NCIS, as may be on the cards, or there were some other changes, he could use that order-making power to redesignate one of the big criminal investigation agencies listed in the Bill. That is the normal purpose that we expected, and the normal procedure in legislation.
  Perhaps by a little accident, more information began to be revealed. I asked the Minister to reassure me that the sandwich police at the Department of Health would not have those powers. We were all rather amazed when the Minister briefly said that the sandwich police at the Department of Health would indeed have powers of directed surveillance and the use of covert sources.
  It was a Thursday morning, and you will know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, how bad Thursday mornings are for maximum performance. However, at that point many of us began to wake up and realise that there might be more to the apparently innocuous little clause than met the eye.
  We asked the Minister to reassure us that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food vets, and the inspectors who count my farmers' sheep, would not be included under the same clause as the National Criminal Intelligence Service, MI5, MI6 and the big boys. The Minister was forced to tell us that MAFF inspectors were included. We had a long debate in Committee as we tried to tease out what was going on in subsection (4)(h).
  There seems to be a breach of normal parliamentary convention. It is acceptable for the Government to include an order-making power in the Bill if the Secretary of State has not decided what the orders will be, or if he knows that he will have to make an order at some future date, but the subject is not yet certain. However, the Government know exactly what they want to cover. The Minister, in his usual courteous and helpful way, followed up the debate in Committee with a letter.
  New schedule 2 contains the substance of the letter. At the beginning of it, the Minister mentioned the organisations listed in the clause, including the National Crime Squad, the intelligence services and so on. He mentioned two other Home Office agencies—the Prison Service and the immigration service. He also listed the Department of Social Security, the Inland Revenue and seven different organisations in the Department of Health that required powers of directed surveillance. The latter included one organisation—the welfare foods section—that I omitted from new schedule 2 because it does not need such powers. I should like to hear the Minister's justification for its inclusion.
  The list also includes the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, three organisations in the Department of Trade and Industry, three organisations in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, and nine organisations in MAFF. We can understand the need to include the Meat Hygiene Service. I used to run the Pesticides Safety Directorate; I therefore understand the reasons for its inclusion. However, my list omits the egg inspectorate. Irrespective of the powers that MAFF, in its wisdom, believes that it needs, the egg inspectorate should not be listed in the same clause as MI5, MI6 and the National Criminal Intelligence Service. I am sure that Edwina Currie would have reached the same conclusion.
  Other organisations in MAFF, too, have the power of directed surveillance, and want the Secretary of State to make an order. The Intervention Board for agricultural produce wants that power. The Health and Safety Executive, the Serious Fraud Office, the Financial
  606
  Services Authority, and various local authorities as defined in the Local Government Act 1999, are also on the Minister's list.
  Thirty-two other agencies of Departments want to be included in subsection (4)(h). The clause currently includes the big boys—that is the best collective name for the police force, the National Criminal Intelligence Service and the security services. As soon as we pass the clause that lists them, the Secretary of State will place an order before the House that lists 32 other agencies of Departments, which want the same power as the six big boys.
  Why play the game of listing some organisations in the Bill and including the others through order-making procedures? The Government know which organisations they are. The Government claim that they already use the powers for which the clause provides. I accept that the egg inspectorate does not wish to take new, draconian powers. It apparently already has the power to undertake directed surveillance. I was never in charge of the egg inspectorate, so I never used those powers. I used others, but not those.
  I appreciate that some of those departments need such powers. They can all probably make a valid argument for having them; it is legitimate to exercise the powers for directed and covert surveillance involving the lion mark for eggs, meat hygiene and all the other valid subjects. I could easily deal with the funny ones, but many important matters are involved, such as serious fraud, veterinary and human medicines and so on. It is legitimate to exercise those powers now and it was apparently legitimate to have them under previous Governments, so let us not be too embarrassed about including them in a schedule.
  We should not pretend that under clause 29, only important state agencies such as the National Criminal Intelligence Service, the National Crime Squad, the police, MI5, MI6 and GCHQ will be given the power to undertake directed and covert surveillance. The Government should have the guts to say that in addition, there are good reasons why other organisations, including the Department of Social Security, the NHS fraud office, NHS Estates, Rampton and Broadmoor high security hospitals, the Radiocommunications Agency, the coal health claims unit, the Environment Agency and the Vehicle Inspectorate should have those powers.
  The Government intend to list those bodies. They and the Minister, very decently, have published the list, so let us put it in a schedule and make a clean breast of it. My amendment, which may not be perfectly technically correct, states that the Home Secretary may add more bodies or another Department that is discovered to need such powers. I pay tribute to the Minister for writing to all Departments and trying to winkle them out. They have all been using those powers since the year dot—the coal health claims unit since the last century but one, no doubt. He has tried to pull them together into a comprehensive whole, and has winkled out from them the powers that they have and those that they think they must continue to have.
  It would be helpful if those bodies were included in a schedule, together with a power to add others as and when the Home Secretary concludes that another inspectorate of the department of little widgets and big sausages requires such powers as well. There would be no harm in

  607
  that, as that is how we normally do things in this place. If the Government have a list of organisations that require a certain power, we usually include them in a schedule. We do not want to put them in a clause, as that would require changes to be made should the Home Secretary need to add other bodies.
  We know, and the Government know, what they will do the second the Bill is passed. Let us be absolutely honest and up-front. One can mock the egg inspectorate of MAFF. No doubt next week I shall receive a briefing note stating why it must have such draconian powers to inspect our sunny-side-ups. Although it is legitimate to have the powers, if the Minister defends them at the Dispatch Box, as I hope he will, let him say that they will be included in a schedule, both so that everyone can see what they are and why bodies have them, and so that they can be amended easily if necessary.
  Mr. Heald: I support my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), who put his case with his customary lucidity and succinctness, by saying that the Minister must answer.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) does the House a service by referring to an issue with which we have dealt three times this year in Home Office legislation. A similar matter arose when we considered the Freedom of Information Bill, which ended up including pages of organisations because someone believed that it was important to set out who was governed by the provisions. When the Race Relations (Amendment) Bill was considered in Committee, the Government were persuaded to include a general duty to promote good race relations, although they decided that it would be useful to include a schedule of public authorities that would be governed by it. The right hon. Gentleman makes the case very well as to which authorities, at least at the starting point of the legislation, are to be governed by the provisions. They know, we know and everyone else knows who they are, but the Government must justify putting them on the list, and if they are embarrassed perhaps that is a reason for particular organisations' being removed from the list. I hope that the Government will respond positively on that.
  9.45 pm
  Government amendments Nos. 46 and 47 are a partial answer to our amendment No. 5, which is to bring to the House's attention the need to get rid of what could reasonably be called a Henry VIII clause—the catch-all provision allowing Ministers to do pretty well anything under part II.
  Earlier I owned up to the fact that, having not been on the Committee, I had not followed all the twists and turns of the debate. Part II sets out different procedures for directed surveillance, intrusive surveillance and covert human intelligence. The purpose of the Bill is rightfully to bring new forms of surveillance under the Human Rights Act 1998 and legislation before Parliament.
  Clause 44 allows the Secretary of State by order to shift the rules that apply to directed surveillance and suddenly to apply them to intrusive surveillance. Rules that at one
  608
  moment apply to surveillance that is not defined as directive or intrusive will be applied to surveillance that is so defined.
  My understanding from people who know about these matters is that the boundaries are shifting, and it is illogical to believe that it is right in legislation tightly to categorise directed or covert surveillance. A person who taps in to someone's online bank account may be involved both in covert surveillance and, in almost the same exercise, in intrusive surveillance. It may be better to be honest and say that the categories are wrong. It may be that having different rules and procedures for different types of surveillance covered by part II is an over-prescriptive approach.
  We are grateful for Government amendments Nos. 46 and 47, which take out clause 44(1)(c) and thus reduce the number of alternatives to three. In our view, it would be far better to remove clause 44 altogether. Even better than that, we should think again about how we subdivide the different forms of surveillance in part II. Surveillance must be included—we are not arguing against that proposition—but technology will make the boundaries much less rigid, so we are taking the wrong approach.
  The issue from the citizen's point of view is not the form of the communication that is being watched, but the fact that they are the subject of that intrusion into their privacy. A more citizen-centred definition and approach in the legislation that took account of circumstances in which the citizen's rights to privacy could be infracted might be better than approaching the law by type of intrusion. I hope that the Minister can be positive on the general case, as well as on the specific amendment to clause 44.
  Mr. Charles Clarke: I commend the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) for the entertaining and powerful way in which he put his case, as he did in Committee, although I did not concede the existence of the sandwich police in the royal parks. He put his case wittily and effectively.
  I think that the right hon. Gentleman acknowledges that we have been open about the public authorities that are likely to use these powers. We are not trying to hide the details; indeed, we believe that there has been a great benefit in publicly identifying the public authorities that use covert investigative techniques and ensuring that their use is properly regulated and controlled, with the same standards applied across the different authorities.
  Let me remind the House of the two key purposes of this part of the Bill. We acknowledge that we are simply considering the powers that currently exist—the right hon. Gentleman was kind enough to acknowledge that, too. It is for other legislation, and for other consideration, to determine whether the powers should or should not exist for each of the agencies, and there is an argument to be had in relation to any of them, whether they involve eggs, ice cream or anything else. Where they exist, however, the purpose of the Bill is to ensure that they are covered and are compatible with the European convention on human rights. In the Bill, we are taking a step to bring into the public arena what was not in it previously, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give us credit for that.
  As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I am not unsympathetic to the idea of a schedule, although—as he acknowledged—the proposed schedule is defective,

  609
  because it does not include all the public authorities that have to date indicated their wish to continue their use of these techniques. The right hon. Gentleman explained why he had removed some of them. I was not aware that he had such an antipathy to Edwina Currie, but I am interested to discover yet another split within the Conservative party.
  Although I will give further consideration to naming the public authorities in a schedule, I am not in a position to do so now, because—this is within the parliamentary convention referred to by the right hon. Gentleman—we are currently discussing with our colleagues in Scotland which functions of the named authorities are reserved and which are devolved. Depending on the outcome of those discussions, the use of the powers by some authorities in Scotland may need to be covered by a Bill to be introduced shortly in the Scottish Parliament. That would affect the shape and content of any schedule or order provided for in this Bill.
  I will, however, give the right hon. Gentleman a commitment now. We are seeking agreement with the Scots over the period of the Bill's passage in order to publish a schedule of the type that the right hon. Gentleman wants, because we think that the reasons he has given are powerful. I cannot promise him that we will secure agreement with the Scottish Parliament in time, but we positively seek to do so, both in order to resolve matters and in order to provide information in the form that he recommends. It is not an easy process, and I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for being generous enough to acknowledge the work that has gone on in my Department—a Department with which he is familiar—to secure an understanding throughout Whitehall of what is happening, and the progress that is being made. Although, as I say, the process is not easy, it has already brought a lot of information into the public arena—but we are committed to bringing yet more into that arena. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will consider withdrawing his amendment on the basis of my assurance.
  None of us knows how the courts will respond to challenges made under the Human Rights Act after October. After lengthy consideration and discussions with the police and others, we have come up with definitions of surveillance that we believe will satisfy the requirements of the convention, but, as was said earlier, it remains the case that the courts may decide that we have got the balance wrong. Clause 44 will allow us to make certain changes to the provisions, with Parliament's agreement, if we have got it wrong. It will, for example, enable something that we currently consider to be directed surveillance to be treated as intrusive surveillance; or, if we need to take account of future technological advances, it will enable us to provide that part II can apply to an activity that is currently not mentioned.
  However, we noted the concerns raised in Committee, and therefore agreed to remove the provision allowing redesignation to take place. The clause will now only allow for a strengthening of the provisions, so that activities not currently covered can be covered, and directed surveillance can be redesignated intrusive surveillance. I hope that Members will agree that our amendments strengthen the existing provisions, and will not press amendment No. 5 to a Division.
  Amendments Nos. 40, 41 and 44 would allow the necessary orders and rules to be made by the Secretary of State. Clause 39 provides the Secretary of State with an
  610
  order-making power to allow public authorities not currently named to apply for an authorisation. It seems right that we should make that change, which is proposed in amendments Nos. 45 and 48.
  Mr. Maclean: I am grateful to the Minister for his customarily courteous speech, and for acknowledging that there is some merit in the amendment and new schedule. Although it was easy to make fun of the egg inspectorate of MAFF, I was concerned that the Minister might conclude that the substance of my remarks was just a yolk, so to speak. It was not. I was going to say that, if the hon. Gentleman could not accept the new schedule tonight, by the time the Bill went to the other place, their lordships might conclude that clause 29 was rather a scrambled mess, might be more hard boiled than we are in this place and might insist that something be done—although I think that I should desist from that line of argument.
  I am grateful to the Minister for acknowledging that he is willing in principle to go down the route on to which I have tried to force him. I appreciate the difficulty that he is in. I know how difficult it is to deal with the Scots. He has my complete sympathy in that regard. I only hope that, by the time the Bill gets to the other place, progress will have been made in sensitive discussions with the Scots and the Scottish Parliament, so that he is able to set the provision out in schedule form. Otherwise, I suspect that their lordships will wish to force his hand and do that in any case, although I am grateful for his comments. I therefore have no hesitation in saying that I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Remaining Government amendments agreed to.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
  9.59 pm
  Mr. Charles Clarke: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business),
  That, at this day's sitting, the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Betts.]
  Question agreed to.

  Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  Mr. Clarke: The Bill is a major advance for the United Kingdom's legislative system. It advances coverage of the European convention on human rights to a range of activities conducted by the state. It is important to ensure that we are able to update our actions in relation both to human rights and to technological processes. The Bill gives citizens rights that they have never had before in relation to surveillance by the state. It gives me great pleasure to move Third Reading, to which I hope that the House will agree.
  10.1 pm
  Mr. Heald: I beg to move,
  That this House, whilst agreeing with the Government's intention to provide and regulate investigatory powers, declines to give a Third Reading to the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill, because it fails to give crimefighters the powers they need, imposes unspecified and potentially costly burdens on Internet service providers without adequate protection against over-regulation and creates an offence repugnant to justice.
  At the outset, on Second Reading, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) made it clear that the Opposition were concerned about many of the Bill's aspects, but agreed with the principle that crime fighters should have the powers that they need to investigate crime. Concessions have been made on the Bill, but they are not good enough. That is why we have tabled our reasoned amendment.
  The concessions are not good enough because the powers that the Bill makes available to the crime-fighting authorities are inadequate; the Benefits Agency will not be able to intercept in serious cases of benefit fraud, the penalty provided in clause 49, when there is a failure to provide a key needed to decode information, is only two years, whereas it should be 10; and the Government's failure to agree in Committee with our proposal for a power of search, as requested by the National Criminal Intelligence Service, has ensured that the powers being made available are inadequate.
  The Bill provides for over-regulation, but not for adequate protections. Industry is saying that, if it is to be required to have an intercept capability that it agrees with, there should be clarity about what is proposed. Individual companies should have a right of independent scrutiny of such a proposal. We have therefore suggested a technical approval board, a right of appeal, a review and many other measures that would give confidence to the internet service provider industry. All those issues affect confidence.
  As we have heard in our debates today, internet service provider companies are already tip-toeing offshore to avoid those liabilities. There is uncertainty about the possible bill of more than £30 million for the provision. Additionally, the role of consumers has been ignored. They believe that they own the internet, and they want the confidence of knowing that the internet will not be over-regulated and that their every conversation will not be overheard.
  The offence provided in clause 49 has been described by an eminent barrister as a "repugnant" offence, which requires a person to prove his innocence and carries a penalty of two years' imprisonment. We say that any penalty is wrong if an offence is unjust—if it breaches the golden thread of justice that means that a person is innocent until proven guilty. In the United Kingdom, one should not have to prove one's innocence. That long-standing principle has served this country well for hundreds of years, and it should be upheld.
  The Bill is improved—it is getting better—but it is not good enough. It is not good enough for the authorities who are desperately trying to fight against crime, drug traffickers, paedophiles and money launderers. It is not good enough for the businesses in the new economy that are afraid of over-regulation. It is not good enough for the ordinary citizen, who may be faced with having to prove his or her innocence—something that an Englishman or woman should not have to do.
  10.4 pm
  Mr. Cohen: I shall not detain the House too long. I congratulate the two Ministers on the courteous way in which they have presented the Bill and on the carefully argued case that they have made in the House and in Committee. However, I still think that the Bill raises some concerns.
  Last month, the Government announced that £22 billion had been raised from sale of the next generation of mobile communications licences. Part I, chapter II permits every one of those new-style connections—internet as well as mobile phone—to be monitored by 1,000 or so self-authorising officials.
  The Government have said that they want an often illiterate generation, produced by the previous Government's policies, to become the e-literate generation, adept at using the internet. Under the Bill, details of every website visited can be collected by hundreds of diverse bodies, including 400-plus local authorities and 50 police forces. They can use the powers under chapter II and have two authorising officers each.
  Of course, the police and MI5 face challenges and the Bill rightly helps them, but I am not sure that it is appropriate to put on the same level bodies such as the egg inspectorate, the Royal Pharmaceutical Society or NHS Estates. The Bill is too widely cast. It is not far short of outrageous that officials can authorise themselves to obtain communications data, without an effective check on the exercise of such powers.
  The Government appointed a Data Protection Commissioner to protect privacy. In this important area, the Bill gives the commissioner no explicit role. She is not even a relevant commissioner. Her briefing on the Bill was scathing, effectively saying that the Government were taking too casual an approach to the protection of individual privacy.
  An article in The New York Times only last week pointed out that the United States was moving towards much stronger protection of personal data. It said:
  President Clinton and Vice President Al Gore have detected the growing political appeal of personal privacy in a time of data rape.
  It said that Clinton planned
  to get on with legislation to stem the tide of snooping.
  The Bill has lost an opportunity to do that, and it should be stronger on the protection of individual privacy, to balance the overall emphasis on helping MI5. There is to be a code of practice in association with the Bill. The balance must be restored by making that code a strong one.
  10.8 pm
  Mr. Simon Hughes: The Bill first came to us on Second Reading just two months ago, and the House registered then how important it was. The Liberal Democrats took the view that, although it had some defects, it was necessary to ensure that if, with the development of technology, communication was intercepted or data about communication were collected, that should be covered by the law. That remains our view.
  Many of the large number of Government amendments showed that the Government have listened and moved. In many cases, they listened to my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam

  613
  (Mr. Allan), who cannot be here tonight, but to whom I pay tribute. Many of their arguments, and those of the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) and his colleagues, have been accepted. We welcome the improvements, and the Bill is unarguably better than it was following Second Reading.
  I pay tribute to those outside the House who have helped: Justice, Liberty, and especially Mr. Caspar Bowden from the Foundation for Information Policy Research.
  We must decide whether the concerns of constituents and business people have been sufficiently accommodated so that we can accept the Bill. The Conservative party suggests that the Bill has such defects that we should refuse to give it a Third Reading. We do not agree. The Conservatives give three reasons. First, they say that the Bill does not give crime fighters the powers that they need, but the Bill in fact contains adequate powers. The Conservatives tabled new clause 1 and we tabled new clause 7, as alternatives to part III, but the Conservatives' proposal of a 10-year prison sentence option across the board was wrong and their additional powers were therefore inappropriate.
  Secondly, the Conservatives argue that the Bill
  imposes unspecified and potentially costly burdens on Internet service providers.
  However, we believe that an accommodation can be reached. We have not yet received full assurance on the point, but we have received some assurance that costs will be met. We hope that the Government will go further in the other place. Thirdly, the Conservatives argue that the Bill
  creates an offence repugnant to justice.
  We share their view that the reversal of the burden of proof in clauses 46 to 49 is wrong. However, it was noticeable that, when the same provision was before the House on Third Reading of the Terrorism Bill, the Conservative party did not make the same objection. If it thinks that the reversal of the burden of proof is wrong, it must argue that consistently and not be selective.
  We are consoled by two thoughts as we support Third Reading. First, the other place will seek to amend it, and we may have to rely on the issue of the burden of proof being corrected there. The House of Lords may again have to come to the rescue of the defendant against the state. Secondly, from 2 October, the European convention on human rights will be part of our law. It is unfortunate that the Government are leaving the parts of the Bill that we think go too far to be struck down under the convention and it would be better if the Bill were right without having to be challenged in the courts. However, if the Bill goes beyond the powers that the state should have, the courts will find in favour of the citizen.
  The Bill is necessary. It is not perfect yet, but it is improved. We hope that the Lords will take the signals from this place and correct the one remaining significant objection—to part III—that we still have to the Bill.
  10.13 pm
  Mr. Charles Clarke: I begin by paying tribute to those who participated in tonight's debate and in Committee, to the Clerks and everybody who serviced the Committee during the course of the Bill, to my officials, and to the wide range of organisations that commented
  614
  constructively on the Bill. It is important to acknowledge, as everybody concerned has done, that we have had a wide and open debate. That is in the best traditions of the House.
  I understand the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen), but they have previously been debated. His point about the need for a strong code of practice is taken, and I hope that he feels that the points that he raises have been given a full airing, both in Committee and on Report.
  I appreciate the way in which the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and his colleagues have contributed to the debate. I am delighted that they have decided to support Third Reading, and I think that they have made the right decision. They have paid close attention to various specifics in the Bill and we have tried to respond to the serious way in which their comments were put by the hon. Gentleman's colleagues in Committee. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is responding to us tonight by saying that we can work to improve the Bill together, because that is the right approach to enable us to extend human rights more generally.
  I was, however, surprised and even shocked that the Opposition decided to table the reasoned amendment. I shall deal with the three specific points that it raises, but in reverse order.
  The amendment states that the Bill creates an offence that is "repugnant to justice". A week or so ago, I met the barrister on whose opinion that element of the amendment was based, and I discussed in detail with him the matters involved. The word "repugnant" appears to have been taken from the divisional court judgment in the Kebilene case, which then went to the House of Lords.
  However, when the House of Lords considered the case, it did not find the offence to be repugnant. Lord Hope said:
  A sound judgment as to whether the burden which he has to discharge is an unreasonable one is unlikely to he possible until the facts are known.
  The Lords did not accept that the offence was repugnant, and to suggest otherwise is both offensive and wrong.
  The second contention in the amendment is that the Bill
  imposes unspecified and potentially costly burdens on Internet service providers
  The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) should concede that the Government have given a great deal of information about the costs involved. Substantial discussions have been held with the industry. We acknowledge that the industry has genuine concerns, which we have debated fully. We have been detailed about the costs involved, and we have set out the position very clearly.
  The amendment claims that the Bill fails to give crime fighters the powers that they need. The hon. Gentleman spoke about the need to deal with paedophiles, drug dealers, cyber crime and fraud. For that, we need the powers in the Bill, and they must be properly established and subject to the European convention on human rights.
  The reasoned amendment would deprive the Bill of the Third Reading that it needs. As a result, when the ECHR comes into force on 2 October, many of the strategies used by law enforcement agencies to prosecute international paedophiles, drug rings, cyber crime gangs

  615
  and fraudulent organisations will have to be suspended because no legal framework in which they can operate will exist.
  I believe that the hon. Gentleman and the Conservative party will regret opposing Third Reading. As the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) correctly said on Second Reading, the Bill is needed to ensure that law enforcement has the powers necessary to fight international crime and to ensure that our citizens are properly protected.
  That is why I am shocked that the Opposition should have decided to oppose Third Reading. I believe that they will come to regret it, and I urge the House to turn their amendment down.
  10.18 pm
  Mr. Heald: The powers in the Bill are inadequate, and will overburden business and industry. The Bill is unsatisfactory and not good enough, and we intend to push the amendment to a Division.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 139, Noes 330.

  Division No. 183]

  [10.17 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Flight, Howard

  Amess, David

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Fraser, Christopher

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Garnier, Edward

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Gibb, Nick

  Baldry, Tony

  Gill, Christopher

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Gray, James

  Bercow, John

  Green, Damian

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Greenway, John

  Blunt, Crispin

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Boswell, Tim

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Hammond, Philip

  Brady, Graham

  Hawkins, Nick

  Brazier, Julian

  Heald, Oliver

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Burns, Simon

  Hunter, Andrew

  Butterfill, John

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Cash, William

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Chope, Christopher

  Clappison, James

  Key, Robert

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Lansley, Andrew

  Collins, Tim

  Leigh, Edward

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Letwin, Oliver

  Cran, James

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Lidington, David

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Day, Stephen

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Evans, Nigel

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Faber, David

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Fabricant, Michael

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Fallon, Michael

  Madel, Sir David

  616

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Malins, Humfrey

  Steen, Anthony

  Maples, John

  Streeter, Gary

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Swayne, Desmond

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Syms, Robert

  Moss, Malcolm

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Taylor, Ian (Esher &Walton)

  Norman, Archie

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Page, Richard

  Townend, John

  Paice, James

  Tredinnick, David

  Paterson, Owen

  Trend, Michael

  Pickles, Eric

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Prior, David

  Viggers, Peter

  Randall, John

  Waterson, Nigel

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Wells, Bowen

  Robathan, Andrew

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Robertson, Laurence

  Whittingdale, John

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Ross, William (E Lond'y)

  Wilkinson, John

  Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

  Willetts, David

  Ruffley, David

  Wilshire, David

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Shepherd, Richard

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  and

  Spring, Richard

  Mr. Peter Luff.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Ainger, Nick

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Caplin, Ivor

  Allen, Graham

  Cawsey, Ian

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Chaytor, David

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Chidgey, David

  Ashton, Joe

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Clapham, Michael

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Austin, John

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Banks, Tony

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Barnes, Harry

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Battle, John

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Clelland, David

  Beard, Nigel

  Clwyd, Ann

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Coaker, Vernon

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Cohen, Harry

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

  Coleman Iain

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Colman, Tony

  Benton, Joe

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Connarty, Michael

  Berry, Roger

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Best, Harold

  Corbett, Robin

  Betts, Clive

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Corston, Jean

  Blizzard, Bob

  Cotter, Brian

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Cousins, Jim

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Cox, Tom

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Crausby, David

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Breed, Colin

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Cummings, John

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Browne, Desmond

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Burden, Richard

  Dalyell, Tam

  Burgon, Colin

  Darvill, Keith

  Burnett, John

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Burstow, Paul

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Davidson, Ian

  617

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

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

  Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Denham, John

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Dismore, Andrew

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Dobbin, Jim

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Doran, Frank

  Kemp, Fraser

  Dowd, Jim

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Drew, David

  Khabra, Piara S

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Kidney, David

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Edwards, Huw

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Efford, Clive

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Ennis, Jeff

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Etherington, Bill

  Laxton, Bob

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Lepper, David

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Levitt, Tom

  Fisher, Mark

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Flynn, Paul

  Linton, Martin

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Livsey, Richard

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Lock, David

  Foulkes, George

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Fyfe, Maria

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Gapes, Mike

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  McDonnell, John

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  McIsaac, Shona

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  McNamara, Kevin

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  McNulty, Tony

  Godsiff, Roger

  MacShane, Denis

  Goggins, Paul

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  McWalter, Tony

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  McWilliam, John

  Gorrie, Donald

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Martlew, Eric

  Hanson, David

  Maxton, John

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Healey, John

  Meale, Alan

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Miller, Andrew

  Heppell, John

  Mitchell, Austin

  Hesford, Stephen

  Moffatt, Laura

  Hill, Keith

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Hinchliffe, David

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Hoey, Kate

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Morley, Elliot

  Hope, Phil

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

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

  Mountford, Kali

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Mudie, George

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Mullin, Chris

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Hurst, Alan

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Hutton, John

  Norris, Dan

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Illsley, Eric

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Olner, Bill

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Jamieson, David

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Jenkins, Brian

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  618

  Pearson, Ian

  Stevenson, George

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Pike, Peter L

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Plaskitt, James

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Pollard, Kerry

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Pond, Chris

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Pope, Greg

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Stunell, Andrew

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Purchase, Ken

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Radice, Rt Hon Giles

  Timms, Stephen

  Rammell, Bill

  Tipping, Paddy

  Raynsford, Nick

  Todd, Mark

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Touhig, Don

  Rendel, David

  Trickett, Jon

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Truswell, Paul

  Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Rooney, Terry

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Roy, Frank

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Ruane, Chris

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Tyler, Paul

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Tynan, Bill

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Salter, Martin

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Sanders, Adrian

  Wareing, Robert N

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Watts, David

  Sawford, Phil

  Webb, Steve

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Sheerman, Barry

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Singh, Marsha

  Skinner, Dennis

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Willis, Phil

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Winnick, David

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Wood, Mike

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Woolas, Phil

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

  Worthington, Tony

  Snape, Peter

  Wray, James

  Soley, Clive

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Spellar, John

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Mr. Kevin Hughes and

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Mrs. Anne McGuire.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Main Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 62 (Amendment on second or third reading), and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

  COUNTRYSIDE AGENCY
  That the draft Development Commission (Dissolution) Order 2000, which was laid before this House on 12th April, be approved.—[Mr. Sutcliffe.]
  Question agreed to.

  EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT COMMITTEE
  Ordered,
  That Mr. John Hayes be discharged from the Education and Employment Committee, and Mr. Patrick Nicholls be added to the Committee.[Mr. McWilliam.]

  Assisted Area Status (Burnley, Hyndburn and Rossendale)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Sutcliffe.]
  10.32 pm
  Mr. Peter L. Pike: I have pleasure in initiating a debate on an important issue for Burnley, Hyndburn and Rossendale. Before I begin my speech, it would be wrong of me not to record my congratulations to Burnley football club on securing automatic promotion last Saturday. I say that in all seriousness; the issue is important not only for the club, but for Burnley, because it boosts morale. It is incredible how much production rises in local industry when Burnley football club does well.
  Last Friday, I opened the Northbridge conference centre at Elm street in Burnley. It is in a building that was occupied by Lucas several years ago. Lucas moved out when it relocated, and the building has undergone several alterations. The refurbishment is incredible—an area of derelict houses opposite the building has been cleared, a new car park is being built and landscaping is being carried out.
  That work was made possible by help from various Government programmes over the years—objective 2, assisted area status or urban development. Indeed, in a short speech at the opening ceremony, the owners of the building referred to the grants that had enabled the work to be undertaken.
  My speech is about three areas because we are making a joint submission. My hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Pope) is in the Chamber and the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting, my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Janet Anderson), will enter the Chamber any minute now. Both of them are precluded by their membership of the Government from speaking in the debate, but they very much support the case that I shall make in my speech.
  My right hon. Friend the Minister saw us on 18 April, and I am very grateful for that. He is an old friend of mine; we both came into the House in 1983. We are grateful for the way in which he has listened to our case, but it is important to make the case publicly in the Chamber to show that we are doing everything possible to ensure that assisted area status is given to the three authorities. My right hon. Friend wrote to us on 19 April, and I shall refer to that letter later in the debate.
  Burnley, Hyndburn and Rossendale were included in the revised map that was agreed by the Government last July and that was put forward as the new map of assisted area status. We welcomed that at the time and we thought that the Government had done an excellent job in putting wards together. They put together areas of deprivation and those that met the requirements of the assisted area scheme. They also did a good job in enabling as many local authorities as possible to use the resources available.
  Unfortunately, that proved to be a false dawn and the European Union—there was a change in the Commission—was not willing to agree to the proposals. It was a major blow when it was announced on 10 April that the map would be changed yet again.

  621
  A letter of 10 April from my right hon. Friend the Minister said:
  In the light of those discussions, the Government today announced that it intends to submit an amended set of proposals for the new Assisted Areas. The enclosed booklet sets out the details.
  He said that there would be a three-week period of consultation, but he added:
  I regret that the new proposals do not maintain the level of Tier 2 coverage in your constituency. We will, however, ensure that SMEs continue to have access to the DTI's Enterprise Grant Scheme.
  That news was a major blow to us; it was a real shock and totally unexpected at that stage.
  I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen has now arrived. She was obviously delayed by the vote that has just taken place.
  On 14 April, the North West regional development agency issued a press release that suggested that its board supported the case for east Lancashire to be reconsidered for assisted area status. It said that
  board member, Kath Reade, supported by Dennis Mendoros, led the call for the agency to help restore Assisted Area to East Lancashire.
  Mrs Reade said, "East Lancashire has been dealt two body blows in quick succession. The loss of Objective 2 European funding and now the loss of a Assisted Area status is nonsensical in an area of obvious need. I want the Northwest Development Agency to use as much influence as possible to change this decision. We must be able to support our manufacturing base in East Lancashire."
  Rossendale council has written a detailed letter to the Government office of the north-west and it has made a strong case. Among other things, it says:
  This decision has caused great dismay and anger here in Rossendale and the Council ask that the Government reviews the decision especially in the light of the current economic situation facing the Borough and agrees to at least re-instate the above wards if not accept the case for the inclusion of the whole of Rossendale on the new map.
  It points out:
  Over the past 12 months (February 1999–February 2000) unemployment in Rossendale has increased by 1.7 per cent. compared with a decrease of 10.7 per cent. nationally. This has been caused by the high level of closures and redundancies throughout 1999 and is a very worrying trend.
  Burnley borough council writes:
  At the beginning of 2000, unemployment in Burnley stood at 3.5 per cent., or 1,435 people … If the 800 redundancies which have been announced in Burnley since the start of the year "feed through" into the unemployment statistics, Burnley's unemployment rate will increase to around 5.5 per cent. (a 57 per cent. increase), and will stand some 34 per cent. higher then the national unemployment rate
  as it was in March 2000. It adds:
  It is worth re-iterating that it is the worsening of the position locally since the original East Lancashire case was submitted in October 1998 which gives … cause for concern.
  Burnley had a strong case when it was considered in October 1998. However, every factor on which the proposal was considered has worsened since the proposal was made.
  Burnley council continues:
  There have been further declines in the figures for "Gross Value Added" since October 1998, and also for "Net Capital Expenditure Per Head in Manufacturing".
  The new index of local deprivation, which will be published in June, will show that all boroughs in east Lancashire, including Pendle, are in a much worse position. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) is also here to support my case.
  622
  East Lancashire Partnership sent a letter, dated 5 May, to all Lancashire Members, saying that it hopes we will
  support the case for East Lancashire as the loss of Tier 2 Status will have a negative impact on our manufacturing industries and will limit our ability to restructure our economic base to make it more competitive.
  In a letter to the Minister, the North West regional development agency, the north-west regional assembly and East Lancashire Partnership made the point that their case is supported not only by east Lancashire but by the region. It said:
  Our case sets out our joint understanding and commitment to the inclusion of Assisted Area coverage for Wards within East Lancashire as part of North West regional Assisted Area coverage and the regional prioritisation of these areas as part of that represented by the Government on behalf of English regions.
  This is not only a local case, supported, rightly, by vested interests such as those in Burnley, Hyndburn and Rossendale, but one with the full backing of the north-west regional assembly and development agency. They believe that there is a strong case for the change in the present map, which has been put out to consultation. The closing date for responses was last Tuesday.
  The original case that was made to the Government was based on structural decline, low gross average earnings and low pay, business registrations and survival rates, unemployment and the 1998 index of local deprivation. On structural decline, it can clearly be demonstrated that the east Lancashire economy has become increasingly vulnerable and continues to under-perform compared with the rest of the UK.
  On gross average earnings, wages in east Lancashire are 14 per cent. lower than the national average. In manufacturing, wages are 13 per cent. lower than the national average. Business registrations have fallen because of the economic climate. Unemployment is getting worse, and I mentioned that several redundancies had been announced in the past few months. In crude terms, east Lancashire has been a job deficit area for decades, and the situation has become acute over the years. The index of local deprivation supports our case.
  As I said, the latest figures underline the fact that the position is getting worse. For Hyndburn, the gross value added at the time of the proposal's submission in October 1998 was 81 per cent. of the UK figure and the latest figures show a deterioration to 79 per cent. The figure for Rossendale has fallen from 74 per cent. of the UK figure to 73 per cent. In Burnley, the net capital expenditure per head in manufacturing was 68 per cent. of the UK figure at the time of the submission, but the latest figures show a fall to 65 per cent. In Rossendale, the figure was 62 per cent. of the UK figure, and has now fallen to 50 per cent.
  Changes in international trade mean that TRW is moving work not to the European Union but to eastern Europe because of low wages there. Only last month, I secured an Adjournment debate on the redundancies that had been announced at TRW, which are a serious blow to the area. As I said, unemployment in Rossendale has increased by 1.7 per cent., and Burnley's unemployment rate is following that trend, as the 709 redundancies announced in March are added to February's unemployment total of 1,454.
  Those are the problems that we face. On the index of deprivation, Hyndburn has moved from 76 to 43, Burnley from 65 to 50 and Rossendale from 107 to 65. Many areas

  623
  that have been included in the assisted area status map have far lower figures of deprivation than the three areas that I am talking about. The automotive industry is a major employer in our area. Many people depend on it for their job, so they are concerned about what will happen at Rover and Ford.
  We need assisted area status if we are to develop industrial estates in our area. Shuttleworth Mead in Burnley has 30 acres remaining for development and the potential for 1,800 jobs; Network 65 in Burnley has 27.5 acres remaining for development and the potential for 1,500 jobs; 65 Central in Hyndburn has 86 acres remaining for development and the potential for 3,500 jobs; and Trans-International Park in Rossendale has 7.5 acres remaining for development and the potential for 400 jobs.
  One of the points that I made to my right hon. Friend the Minister is that Burnley has 3,000 empty houses: poverty and deprivation are on the increase and people are moving away because there are no jobs. We have the will to tackle those problems, but we need Government assistance. Another problem is the European Commission's official confirmation of the closure of English Partnership's investment programme. It has been said that the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions provides assistance, but if we do not get assisted area status it cannot help.
  The conclusion of the submission states that the area is a nationally important manufacturing area, with a strong case for support based on poor economic performance and high levels of poverty and deprivation. At a time when the national economy is improving, conditions in the area have not improved—indeed, against many indicators, performance has worsened. Tier 2 status and access to regional selective assistance is vital to partners' attempts to tackle the deep-seated economic problems in east Lancashire. Without it, the already fragile economy will deteriorate even further than it has done since the original submission in October 1998, and the area's efforts to develop in the new economy will be seriously weakened.
  In his letter, my right hon. Friend the Minister expressed a willingness to come to the area and meet representatives of the regional development agency and the Government office of the north-west. We hope that he will be able to do so soon, and that he will respond positively and so offer hope to Burnley, Hyndburn and Rossendale.
  10.48 pm
  The Minister for Trade (Mr. Richard Caborn): Before I start to respond to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike), I congratulate his local football team, Burnley, on making it into the first division. He will be able to join us at Bramall Lane, where my team, Sheffield United, plays. I do not know whether it is the great support for Burnley that got the team into the first division, or whether spin coming out of No. 10 is responsible—I know that one of the official spokesmen there is also a supporter. Whatever the reason, it is good to see Burnley back in the first division.
  I commend my hon. Friend on the force of his argument. As he said, we entered Parliament at the same time, so I know that he has always been a strong advocate
  624
  of Burnley and East Lancashire as a whole, especially its manufacturing base. He speaks with great sincerity on the issues and he has made the case well tonight. The Government recognised the needs and concerns of the area in the proposals for the new assisted areas map published in July last year. We listened closely to the views of local and regional partners, including the regional development agencies, when drawing up those proposals.
  I know that my hon. Friend and his constituents share my disappointment that we have been unable to secure Commission approval for those proposals, but I can assure him that we fought hard to secure our July proposals, including all those for east Lancashire, and we are not amending those proposals lightly. The amendments that we announced last month, which have been the subject of a three-week consultation period, were made solely to meet the European Commission's concerns about our July proposals.
  My hon. Friend may find it helpful if I set out the Commission's concerns and what we have had to do to meet them. The Commission thought that the approach to the July proposals, which reflected earlier public consultation and dialogue with regional and local partners, would have given the United Kingdom an unfair advantage over other member states of the European Union.
  The proposals, the Commission believed, allowed the UK to include industrial locations within the assisted areas, while excluding the population of surrounding areas that might benefit from the regional assistance given to such industry. With our population ceiling, that would have allowed the UK greater scope for supporting industry in competition with our European partners.
  To meet the concern that the July proposals would give the UK an unfair advantage, the Commission required that our proposed assisted areas be more compact and self-contained. It also required us to reduce the population coverage of our proposed assisted areas by a third of a million people.
  The changes have had an impact on our proposals in east Lancashire. We could not, as we did under the July proposals, extend coverage in a strip from Blackburn to Burnley, Rossendale and Hyndburn. The areas proposed in July were not sufficiently compact to secure Commission approval. Under the new constraints imposed by the Commission, we would have had to include the whole of east Lancashire. That would have required a substantial increase in population coverage—instead of which, of course, we have been faced by a demand from the Commission that we cut the population coverage by a third of a million.
  I said earlier that we fought hard to secure our July proposals, but we should be clear that the Government do not have the final say in the matter. Under the European Community treaties the Commission has sole competence. Therefore, as my hon. Friend said, we cannot pay any regional state aid without an assisted areas map approved by the Commission. It was clear that the Commission would not approve our July proposals, and we have had to make changes accordingly.
  The Government, however, are conscious of the needs and concerns of the people of east Lancashire. Assisted area status is but one part of a package of measures that the Government have put in place to meet regional and local needs.

  625
  My hon. Friend knows that when the Government came to power, we inherited an unco-ordinated, disjointed set of regional bodies. Regional activity on inward investment, supply chains, rural development, physical regeneration, and social and economic regeneration all took place in separate organisations. There was no overall strategy to bring together regional activity. We have addressed that problem.
  We have devolved power to Scotland and Wales and set up the regional development agencies in England. Last October each RDA produced, with local partners, a strategy for improving the economic performance of its region. The strategies provide a framework for ensuring that all our regions share in Britain's growth. East Lancashire will benefit from the implementation of the north-west's regional strategy—"England's North West: A Strategy towards 2020"—with its work to improve the performance of sectors of continuing and growing importance to the region. Aerospace, for example, is one of the sectors specifically targeted.
  Our strategy is not to set one area or region against another, but to use the policy instruments that we have available to make sure that all our regions are competitive and successful.
  The framework provided by the regional development agencies, together with initiatives such as the new enterprise grant scheme, to which my hon. Friend referred; the strengthened provision of trade promotion and development services in partnership with local providers, through the formation of British Trade International; the £50 million regional innovation fund to provide support for business clusters; the £30 million phoenix fund; and the £10 million competitiveness development fund will ensure that all areas benefit from Britain's growth.
  Our aim is to enable regions to meet the challenges of the new economy. Rather than throwing money at the symptoms, we must tackle the underlying causes, invest in skills and increase opportunities for enterprise. We are doing that.
  Those policies are having an impact on the ground. Since the beginning of this year, the new enterprise grant scheme has supported investment of £575,000 in east Lancashire. Training and skills development is being supported through the East Lancashire training and enterprise council, and, from next year, by the learning and skills council. In addition, in June, the Government will announce objective 3 structural fund support for skills
  626
  and training, and publishing bidding guidance. Based on previous programme allocations, that is likely to mean about £250 million for the north-west, and I would expect east Lancashire to be at the forefront of the bids.
  The funding will provide significant support for the Government's employability agenda. It will help people of all ages to get to work. It will also help firms and workers to adapt to new working conditions and thus compete more effectively in the global marketplace. In total, the areas of east Lancashire that we can no longer include in our assisted area proposals will continue to receive Government funding of nearly £40 million to regenerate the area and boost business.
  I know that my hon. Friend and his constituents were also disappointed not to secure coverage under the objective 2 structural funds map. However, the Government, through hard negotiation in Europe, secured transitional funding for the areas that lost out. In the north-west, that means that more than £100 million of transitional funding will be available to assist areas such as east Lancashire. That funding is, of course, part of a comprehensive £10 billion package of European structural funding to boost industry and enterprise in the regions.
  While I recognise the disappointment of my hon. Friend and the people of Burnley, Rossendale and Hyndburn that they are not included in the amended assisted areas map, I am confident that the amended proposals represent the best package that we can broker with the Commission within the constraints that it has now imposed.
  For east Lancashire, we must work together to build on the area's many strengths, which my hon. Friend has highlighted over many years, to ensure a prosperous and vibrant future for the people and businesses of the area. I repeat my offer, which I made to my hon. Friend when he and his colleagues came to see me, to visit east Lancashire and discuss with him and with regional and local partners how we can secure the sort of future for east Lancashire that we all want.
  Although I accept that my hon. Friend and his constituents are disappointed, I believe that we have done the best job. I stress that it is only one part of a much larger funding package for our regions, and I am sure that east Lancashire will take advantage of the other provisions that the Government will make available.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at two minutes to Eleven o ' clock.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Congo (Zimbabwean Forces)
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received of the deployment of Zimbabwean forces in protecting mining interests in the Congo; and who owns those interests. [120868]

  Mr. Hain
  We have seen reports that the Zimbabwean Defence Forces are deployed in areas of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) which contain the main diamond fields and reserves of copper and cobalt. We understand that exploitation of diamonds is principally carried out by the Societe Miniere de Bakwanga (MIBA), and production of copper and cobalt by GECAMINES. Both of these companies are substantially DRC state-owned, but there are reports that they have entered into joint venture with various partners. There are also reports that the Zimbabwean Defence Force has set up a company called OSLEG Private Limited, which includes capital provided by private investors, to exploit DRC's mineral reserves.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his oral statement of 3 May 2000,Official Report, columns 149–50, if he will list the dates of his meetings with the previous Secretary-General of the Commonwealth to discuss the crisis in Zimbabwe. [121202]

  Mr. Hain
  Neither my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary nor I spoke to the previous Commonwealth Secretary General following the onset of the recent wave of illegal farm occupations in Zimbabwe.

  Iran
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what communication he has had with the Iranian Foreign Minister regarding the timing of his visit to Iran; and if he raised the issue of legal proceedings concerning members of the Jewish community in Shiraz in the course of that communication. [121213]

  Mr. Hain
  The Iranian authorities are well aware of our concerns about the trial of 13 members of the Jewish community on espionage charges in Shiraz. The Foreign Secretary made these clear to Dr. Kharrazi personally when he visited London in January. We and our EU partners have raised our concerns on many occasions, most recently in the form of a demarche by the EU Presidency in Tehran on 29 April. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the Foreign Secretary's visit to Tehran has 258W
  been postponed from 8/9 May to 4/5 July. The Foreign Secretary spoke briefly to Iranian Foreign Minister Kharrazi on 29 April in order to postpone this visit.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 17 April 2000,Official Report, columns 396–97W, what assessment he has made of recent developments in the legal proceedings concerning members of the Jewish community in Shiraz, Iran, with particular reference to the case of Hamid Tefilin; what representations have been made to the Government of Iran about the decision to hold the trial in camera and about the proceedings in general; what steps have been taken by the Government to monitor the trial; and if he will make a statement. [121141]

  Mr. Hain
  We and our EU partners have raised our concerns about the detention and trial of a number of Iranians including 13 members of the Iranian Jewish community in Shiraz on espionage charges with the Iranian authorities on a number of occasions, most recently in the form of a demarche by the EU Presidency in Tehran on 29 April.

  Our Embassy in Tehran is working closely with our EU partners and other like-minded embassies to ensure that events in Shiraz are monitored closely. We are aware of reports emanating from Hamid Tefilin's defence counsel that Mr. Tefilin has confessed to being trained to spy for Israel, but that he has not carried out any espionage activity. We shall continue to monitor events closely.

  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Iranian authorities over the banning of newspapers and magazines. [121136]

  Mr. Hain
  We and our EU partners have been following closely events in Iran. We note that the editors of the newspapers and magazines that have been banned are avoiding public comment and urging their supporters to follow suit in an effort to maintain calm.

  Sanctions (Serbia and Iraq)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make representations at the UN to allow sanctions against(a) Serbia and (b) Iraq to be lifted on goods relating to bona fide scientific and technological work essential to food testing and civil manufacturing industry. [121079]

  Mr. Hain
  UN Security Council resolution 1160 (1998) imposed an embargo on the supply of arms and related material to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and a ban on arming and training for terrorist activities there. There are no other UN sanctions measures in force in relation to Serbia.

  Under the current terms of the "Oil-for-Food" programme, established by Security Council resolution 986, Iraq can sell unlimited quantities of oil to buy a wide range of humanitarian goods, including the kind of equipment mentioned in the question. Iraq is expected to raise $10 billion this year from oil sales. Each contract is checked to ensure that the goods will be used for their stated purpose.

  EU Enlargement
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to "IGC: Reform for Enlargement, Cm 4595", what study has been made by(a) Her Majesty's Government and (b) the European Union of the political consequences of admission to the European Union of parts of former Yugoslavia; by whom it was made; and if its conclusions have been published. [121061]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Government's (and European Union's) overall objective is the fullest possible integration of the countries of the Western Balkans into the political and economic mainstream of Europe. No formal study has been made of the political consequences of admission to the European Union of parts of the former Yugoslavia.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to "IGC: Reform for Enlargement, Cm 4595", in relation to the adoption of the Acquis of the Community, what permanent or temporary derogations are planned to be made to any applicant state in respect of(a) the Common Fisheries Policy, (b) the Common Agricultural Policy and (c) participation in the Cohesion Fund. [121077]

  Mr. Vaz
  It is too early in the accession negotiations to predict the extent of any derogations.

  Negotiations on Fisheries have started with six applicant countries (Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Poland and Slovenia). The EU Common Positions agreed for these negotiations make clear that all new member states will be expected to apply the Common Fisheries Policy in full.

  Negotiations have also started on Regional Policy with these countries. But their participation in the Cohesion Funds will not be determined until later in the negotiations.

  We expect negotiations on Agriculture with these countries to begin in June this year.

  Iraqi Oil Sanction Breaches
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 2 May 2000,Official Report, column 67W, on Iraqi oil, if he has asked the (a) Council of Ministers and (b) European Commission to put pressure on Turkey to bring the trade in Iraqi oil across its borders into the UN humanitarian programme; what was the volume of oil in metric tonnes sold through the UN programme in (i) 1999 and (ii) 2000 to date; and what was the estimated value in (1) 1999 and (2) 2000 to date of Iraqi oil sold (x) through the UN programme and (y) in breach of sanctions. [121054]

  Mr. Hain
  We have discussed measures to cut down on oil smuggling including through Turkey with the other members of the Security Council which includes two fellow members of the European Union.
  260W
  The estimated value of illegal oil exports in 1999 was $250 million and in 2000 to date $170 million. As I pointed out in my answer of 2 May, the UK is making every effort to reduce this illegal trade,.

  UN statistics for the volume of oil sold under the "oil for food" arrangements are provided for each six month phase and in barrels. For phase V (26 November 1998 to 25 May 1999) the volume of oil sold was 360.8 million barrels worth $3.95 billion. For phase VI (25 May 1999 to 11 December 1999) the volume of oil sold was 389.6 million barrels worth $7.4 billion. Under the present phase (phase VII) the volume of oil sold up to 28 April was 244.7 million barrels worth $5.79 billion. Phase VII ends on 7 June.

TREASURY

  Climate Change Levy
  Mr. Portillo
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what will be the net financial impact, in the first financial year of its operation, of the climate change levy on(a) the automotive industry, (b) the farming industry, (c) the shipbuilding industry and (d) manufacturing industry in the West Midlands. [120992]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 5 May 2000]The Climate Change Levy package as a whole is expected to be revenue neutral for the private sector. Its introduction will entail no net financial gain for the public finances. The levy package as a whole is also expected to be broadly neutral between the manufacturing and the service sectors.

  The Government have sought to design the climate change levy in a way that maximises its environmental effectiveness while protecting the competitiveness of UK firms. It is not possible to say with precision what the effects of the climate change levy on individual sectors or firms will be, since this will depend, among other things, on each sector's future energy use, employment trends, and take up of the various incentives to improve energy efficiency.

  New Deal
  Mr. Portillo
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much has been spent on the New Deal since 1997. [120997]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  [holding answer 5 May 2000]Information on the estimated allocation of the Windfall Tax receipts between different programmes, including the New Deal, is set out in Table 4.1 of the Financial Statement and Budget Report, 2000.

  Annex Bii of the Department for Education and Employment and the Office for Standards in Education Departmental Report 2000 provides information on expenditure on New Deal programmes within their Departmental Spending Limit.

  Figure 10a of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions Departmental Report 2000 provides information on expenditure on the New Deal for Communities within their Departmental Expenditure Limit.

  National Savings Bonds
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent assessment he has made of the efficiency of the administration relating to bonds by National Savings; and if he will make a statement. [120218]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 2 May 2000]National Savings (NS) takes great care to ensure the systems it uses to deliver its products are efficient and effective. This is essential if NS are to continue to operate successfully in the increasingly competitive retail savings sector. Ministers set annual targets for NS to measure, report on and improve the efficiency of its product administration systems. To achieve these targets NS uses a framework of performance measures, standards and reporting procedures constantly to monitor the efficiency and effectiveness of its product administration systems, including those relating to bonds. This ensures they are subject to continuous improvement and that they remain competitive.

  Family Statistics
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the median duration of(a) a marriage and (b) a cohabiting union in (i) 1970, (ii) 1980 and (iii) 1999. [120677]

  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 Alan Goldsmith to Mr. Gerald Howarth, dated 8 May 2000:
  The Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS) has been asked to reply to your recent Question on the median duration of (a) a marriage and (b) a cohabiting union in (i) 1970, (ii) 1980 and (iii) 1999. I am replying in the Director's absence.

  The only available estimates for marriages ending in divorce or death are as follows:

  Estimated1 median duration of marriages solemnised in England and Wales in:

  Years

  1979–80

  37

  1987

  27

  1993–94

  24

  1 Life table estimates derived from marriage and mortality registration records

  Estimates of the median duration of cohabiting unions are calculated using a different method based on the separation of the couple or the death of one of the partners. The following estimates are the only ones available.

  Estimated1 median durations of cohabiting first unions in Great Britain which started in:

  Years

  1970–79

  3

  1980–84

  4

  1985–89

  3

  1 Omnibus Survey (a sample survey)

  2 Which ended other than in marriage

  Censuses
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many people were prosecuted for failure to complete the 1991 census; [121056]

  (2) when the 2001 census will be (a) dispatched and (b) due for return. [121055]

  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 Alan Goldsmith to Mr. Nick Gibb, dated 8 May 2000:
  The Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS) has been asked to reply to your recent questions on the number of people prosecuted for failure to complete a 1991 Census return and when the 2001 Census form will be despatched and due for return. I am replying in the Director's absence.
  The total number of people in England and Wales who were prosecuted for failure to complete a 1991 Census return was 354.
  Enumerators will deliver 2001 Census forms of return, and reply-paid envelopes as necessary in advance of census day, which is 29 April 2001. The Census forms should be returned on the day after census day or as soon as possible thereafter. Follow-up enquiries will be undertaken if a form has not been received by 8 May 2001.
  The Census Regulations, which provide for the detailed arrangements for the conduct of the census, are shortly to be laid before Parliament.

  Holocaust Victims (Compensation)
  Mrs. Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what will be the tax treatment of moneys paid out by UK banks under the British Bankers Association Restore UK initiative in respect of bank accounts opened by Holocaust victims, frozen during World War II under the Trading With the Enemy Act and subsequently held as dormant accounts. [121457]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government very much support the British Bankers Association "Restore UK" initiative.

  It is right that people who were Holocaust victims, or their beneficiaries, who have moneys restored to them under this scheme, should receive not only the original capital but some form of compensation.

  I am glad to announce that no tax will be payable on any moneys paid out by the banks under this initiative to Holocaust victims or their beneficiaries. This exemption will cover income tax liability on any compensation payments as well as any death duties in respect of the capital held in the accounts.

DEFENCE

  Army Criminal Legal Aid Authority
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on delays in the payment of bills due under the Army Criminal Legal Aid Authority. [120136]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 2 May 2000]The Army Criminal Legal Aid Authority (ACLAA) was set up in 1996 to administer the provision of legal aid for individuals facing court-martial or other defined legal processes. The role of ACLAA is to receive applications
  263W
  for legal aid, define the individual contribution required, make an offer of legal aid on that basis, negotiate acceptance with the employing unit and individual, instruct legal representatives, and finally to review and settle bills for work done.

  In December last year the Officer in Charge became ill which led to some reordering of work while his situation clarified. Sadly it has become clear that it will not be possible for him to return to ACLAA. In addition another experienced member of staff also became ill in January, and has not been able to return either.

  While new staff were being recruited it was necessary to give priority to the allocation of legal aid to individuals to ensure that the legal process was not disrupted or delayed. Regrettably this meant that ACLAA was not able to assess and clear bills until the arrival of additional staff. Over the last month ACLAA staff have been working hard to deal with the backlog of bills that were awaiting payment and many have now been settled.

  Any delay in payment is regrettable. However, ACLAA is currently being expanded and strengthened which should ensure that similar delays, caused by unforeseen circumstances, do not recur.

  Service Personnel (Divorce)
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the divorce rates for serving military personnel in(a) the Army, (b) the Royal Navy and (c) the Royal Air Force for the last 12 month period for which figures are available. [120408]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 3 May 2000]: Due to the manner in which each Service records data on changes in marital status, it is not possible to provide information in the precise manner requested. Notwithstanding, the rates for 1998–99 by Service are as follows:

  Number/percentage

  Army divorce rates 1998–99

  Married strength at 1 April

  57,744

  Divorced (Decree Absolute and Annulments)

  1,135

  Proportion of married personnel Divorced

  2.0%

  Royal Navy-Widow, Divorce and Separation Rates 1998–99

  Married Strength at 1 April

  22,417

  Widowed, Divorced or Separated

  850

  Proportion of married personnel

  Widowed, Divorced or Separated

  3.8%

  Royal Air Force-Divorce and Separation Rates 1998–99

  Married Strength at 1 April

  22,417

  Divorced

  10

  Separated

  1,172

  Proportion of married personnel

  Divorced or Separated

  3.4%

  Note:

  The Royal Navy figures include widows/widowers

  Figures provided by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) for the married population between the ages of 20 and 34, which is broadly comparable with the average age of married Service personnel, indicate an annual divorce rate of approximately 3 per cent. The figures above show that the divorce rates in the Services on a comparable age
  264W
  group basis are no worse than those for society as a whole, especially as the RN and RAF figures include separation as well as divorce.

  Eurocorps and EUROFOR
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many troops from(a) the UK and (b) other EU countries are committed to (i) Eurocorps and (ii) EUROFOR. [120820]

  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 5 May 2000]The UK has no troops committed to either the 5-nation (France, Germany, Belgium, Luxembourg and Spain) EUROCORPS or the 4-nation (France, Italy, Portugal and Spain) EUROFOR as a matter of course, though we have one Liaison Officer attached to HQ EUROCORPS.

  Numbers of troops contributed to the forces in question by other countries are a matter for the countries concerned.

  British Beef
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's policy regarding the supply of British beef for consumption by members of Her Majesty's armed forces. [121073]

  Dr. Moonie
  The supply of food for the armed forces has been contracted out to "3663" and we require them to seek the best price in the open market, consistent with meeting our quality standard. I am as keen, however, on seeing our servicemen and women eating British products as I am for our contractor to secure best value for money. In the case of British beef, since autumn of 1998 we have been supplying 100 per cent. British beef to our armed forces personnel based in the United Kingdom. Supplies for armed forces personnel based overseas are currently sourced from a number of countries.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Health and Safety Executive
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proportion of oral and written complaints made by members of the public were fully investigated by inspectors of health and safety in field offices of the Field Operations Division in fiscal year 1999–2000. [118410]

  Mr. Meacher
  The information requested can not be produced at this time, because full year data on inspectors' work for the year ended 31 March 2000 are not yet available. However, data on the number of complaints followed-up by staff in HSE's Field Operations Directorate for the years 1997–98 and 1998–99 are set out in the table. The table also shows, for information, the number of complaints investigated as a percentage of those received.
  265W

  Complaints followed-up by HSE's Field Operations Directorate by route of complaint

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Telephone

  18,020

  18,686

  Letter

  2,655

  3,042

  Oral (other)

  322

  276

  Complaints followed up a of complaints received is a percentage

  72.6

  76.7

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what was the average number of businesses dealt with by band 3 inspectors in the Health and Safety Executive in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [120390]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 2 May 2000]Health and Safety Executive (HSE) Band 3 inspectors are used in the majority of sectors for which HSE has enforcement responsibility. Inspector contacts with businesses can vary considerably, depending on the sector and circumstances. Inspectors may contact the same business more than once during the course of the year, or may contact several operating sites owned by the same business. Also, a contact could involve an in depth audit, taking several days, or a short visit or meeting.

  In total, HSE staff made 183,000 regulatory contacts with dutyholders and businesses in 1998–99, the last year for which figures are available. Of these, about 8,000 were made by administrative staff in HSE's Field Operations Directorate (FOD), and 33,000 by FOD inspectors other than Band 3 inspectors. A proportion of the rest may have involved inspectors other than Band 3 inspectors, but these could be disaggregated from the date only at disproportionate cost.

  In total, approximately 500 Band 3 inspector staff years spent by HSE Operating Directorates and Divisions in 1998–99 on inspection, investigation and enforcement activity which would have generated the vast majority of regulatory contacts.

  Air Traffic Control
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the New En-route Centre at Swanwick will be fully operational. [120786]

  Mr. Mullin
  The Swanwick Centre is scheduled to come into operation by spring 2002.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many overseas consultancy projects have been undertaken by National Air Traffic Services in the last three years; and where these projects were undertaken. [120789]

  Mr. Mullin
  In the past three years, NATS has undertaken a total of 30 consultancy projects. Projects were undertaken in, or on behalf of, the following countries: Abu Dhabi, Antigua, Australia, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Eire, Finland, Hungary, Iceland, Israel, Japan, Libya, Malaysia, the Netherlands, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Portugal, Singapore, Slovakia, South Africa, Spain, Syria, Switzerland, and the UK. In addition, NATS has participated in a number of consortiums on behalf of the European Organization for the Safety of Air Navigation (Eurocontrol).
  266W
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many aircraft movements there were at UK airfields without air traffic control services in the last 12 months. [120788]

  Mr. Mullin
  There are 142 airports licensed by the CAA. Eighty-eight do not have air traffic control services but published data on aircraft movements are available only for 11 of these. For these 11 airports, there were 100,000 movements, both commercial and non-commercial. There were a total of 3.5 million aircraft movements at all UK airports for which data are available.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the average length of time taken to train an air traffic controller; how many are in training; and how many controllers are required to staff the airfields and centres under NATS control. [120784]

  Mr. Mullin
  Area Control (AC) Air Traffic Control Officers (ATCOs) receive 78 weeks training at the College of Air Traffic Control at Hurn followed by between 12 and 24 months on the job training before achieving validation. Airports ATCOs receive 52 weeks training at the College also followed by between 12 and 24 months on the job training before achieving validation. NATS has a total of 255 controllers currently in training (132 AC and 123 Airports—including part valid controllers). 436 controllers are required to staff the airfields under NATS control and 1,010 to staff the centres.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the suppliers of distress and diversion air traffic control to UK aircraft and aircraft using UK airspace. [120783]

  Mr. Mullin
  The Distress and Diversion (D&D) Air Traffic Control Service in the UK is provided to civil or military aircraft in distress or emergency in UK airspace. This service is supplied by RAF Air Traffic Control personnel located at the London Area and Terminal Control Centre (LATCC) and Scottish Area Control Centre (ScATCC).

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many air traffic controllers are needed to bring Heathrow up to full complement; and how many controllers are being trained at Swanwick. [120785]

  Mr. Mullin
  The total operational requirement for the Heathrow Visual Control Room and Thames Radar/SVFR is 61. There are currently 58 validated controllers. Two trainees are expected to validate within the next six to eight weeks together with one experienced ATCO undergoing retraining who is expected to regain validation within the same period. In addition, there are seven operationally valid Watch Managers at Heathrow.

  The New En-Route Centre at Swanwick is scheduled to come into operation by spring 2002. Operational Conversion Training will begin in January 2001 to meet this requirement. A total of 380 Area Control ATCOs will undergo Operational Conversion Training prior to the operational date.
  267W
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list those UK airports where(a) there is no air traffic control and (b) only (i) an air ground and (ii) flight information service is provided. [120787]

  Mr. Mullin
  The table lists UK airports where there is no air traffic control. Those with an Air/Ground service are indicated by A/G and those with a Flight Information Service, by FISO.

  UK Airports

  Andrewsfield

  FISO

  Barra

  FISO

  Bembridge

  FISO

  Beverley

  A/G

  Blackbushe

  FISO

  Bodmin

  A/G

  Bourn

  A/G

  Brough

  A/G

  Caernarfon

  A/G

  Campbeltown

  FISO

  Chalgrove

  A/G

  Chichester Goodwood

  FISO

  Clacton-on-Sea

  A/G

  Compton Abbas

  A/G

  Cumbernauld

  FISO

  Denham

  FISO

  Derby

  A/G

  Dunkeswell

  A/G

  Duxford

  FISO

  Eaglescott

  A/G

  Earls Colne

  A/G

  Eday

  A/G

  Elmsett

  A/G

  Elstree

  FISO

  Enniskillen St. Angelo

  FISO

  Fair Isle

  A/G

  Fairoaks

  FISO

  Fenland

  FISO

  Fife

  A/G

  Fowlmere

  A/G

  Full Sutton

  A/G

  Glasgow Helipad SECC

  A/G

  Halfpenny Green

  FISO

  Haverfordwest

  A/G

  Hucknall

  A/G

  Inverness

  FISO

  Islay Port Ellen

  FISO

  Lashenden Headcorn

  A/G

  Leicester

  A/G

  Little Gransden

  A/G

  Lydd

  FISO

  Manchester Barton

  FISO

  Netherthorpe

  A/G

  Newtownards

  A/G

  North Ronaldsay

  A/G

  Northampton Sywell

  FISO

  Nottingham

  A/G

  Old Buckenham

  A/G

  Old Sarum

  A/G

  Oxford Kidlington

  FISO

  Panshanger

  A/G

  Papa Westray

  A/G

  Penzance Heliport

  A/G

  Perth

  A/G

  Perranporth

  A/G

  Peterborough/Conington

  A/G

  Redhill

  FISO

  Rendcomb

  A/G

  Retford Gamston

  A/G

  Rochester

  FISO

  Sanday

  A/G

  Sandown Isle of Wight

  A/G

  Sandtoft

  A/G

  268W

  UK Airports

  Seething

  A/G

  Sheffield City

  A/G

  Sherburn-in-Elmet

  A/G

  Shipdham

  FISO

  Shobdon

  FISO

  Sibson Peterborough

  A/G

  Silverstone Heliport

  A/G

  Sleap

  A/G

  Stapleford

  FISO

  Stronsay

  A/G

  Sturgate

  A/G

  Tatenhill

  A/G

  Thruxton

  A/G

  Tingwall

  A/G

  Tiree

  FISO

  Tresco Heliport

  A/G

  Truro

  A/G

  Turweston

  A/G

  Unst

  FISO

  Wellesbourne Mountford

  FISO

  Welshpool

  A/G

  Westray

  A/G

  Whalsey

  A/G

  White Waltham

  FISO

  Wickenby

  A/G

  Social Services (Devon)
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what increase was allocated by his Department for social service provision in Devon County Council's standard spending assessment for 2000–01. [120090]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 2 May 2000]The personal social services standard spending assessment for 2000–01 for Devon County Council increased by £5,326,769, or 5.2 per cent., compared with the previous year.

  PFI Projects
  Mr. Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress has been made with PFI projects in local government: and if he will list those projects endorsed so far. [120844]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  A total of 126 projects across the country have been endorsed from 86 local authorities. Of these, 38 have reached contract signature and another 88 are rapidly progressing towards that stage. These projects are already bringing real improvements to the quality of life in local communities. A full list of the schemes endorsed is as follows. The list is updated regularly and is available on the DETR website http://www.local.detr.gov.uk/pfi.

  Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions

  Depot and Vehicle Services

  Islington—signed

  Lambeth—signed

  Information Communication

  Chelmsford: "Chelmsford Direct"

  Information Technology

  Croydon: "Delivering Customer Focus"

  Daventry

  Derby—signed

  Harrow—signed

  Kent—signed

  Norwich: "Connect" electronic network

  269W
  Housing

  Camden: HRA Pathfinder, modernisation of tower blocks

  Derby: social housing

  Islington: HRA Pathfinder, refurbishment and modernisation of mainly Victorian street properties

  Leeds: HRA Pathfinder, Swarcliffe Estate

  Manchester: HRA Pathfinder, Plymouth Grove/Stockport Road Estate

  Manchester: energy services—signed

  Newham: HRA Pathfinder, Canning Town

  North East Derbyshire: HRA Pathfinder, South East Coalfield Area

  North East Derbyshire: social housing—signed

  Reading: HRA Pathfinder, North Whitley

  Sandwell: HRA Pathfinder, Wednesbury South

  Tower Hamlets: energy services—signed

  Leisure

  Sefton: Crosby leisure centre

  Uttlesford: "Sports and Leisure Facilities" two new sports and leisure centres

  Property

  Bournemouth: library

  Brighton: library

  Copeland: office rationalisation

  Hackney: technology learning centre—signed

  Norfolk: salt barns—signed

  North Wiltshire: property rationalisation—signed

  Redcar and Cleveland: office accommodation

  Sheffield: "Heart of the City" offices—signed

  Shrewsbury and Atcham: office rationalisation

  Trafford: Sale new civic centre office accommodation

  Transport and Street Lighting

  Brent: street lighting—signed

  Doncaster: bus station—signed

  Essex: A130 road—signed

  Nottinghamshire: Nottingham Express Transit light rail scheme—signed

  Staffordshire: street lighting

  Walsall: street lighting

  Waste Management

  East London Waste Authority

  East Sussex and Brighton and Hove Waste Partnership

  Hereford, Worcester—signed

  Isle of Wight—signed

  Kirklees—signed

  South Gloucestershire

  Surrey—signed

  Department for Education and Employment

  Individual schools

  Brent: relocation of Jews Free School

  Dorset: Colfox School replacement secondary school—signed

  Enfield: new secondary school—signed

  Essex: new secondary school

  Hillingdon: new secondary school—signed

  Kingston upon Hull: Victoria Dock, new primary school—signed

  Kent: Swanscombe

  Lambeth: replacement secondary school as part of Project Vauxhall

  Leeds: Cardinal Heenan, replacement secondary school—signed

  Lancashire: Fleetwood High School, replacement/refurbishment

  Liverpool: Speke/Garston Partnership

  Manchester: Temple, replacement primary school

  Portsmouth: new secondary school—signed

  Redbridge: Barley Mow School, new school

  Tower Hamlets: Mulberry School, replacement secondary school

  Walsall: replacement of St. Thomas Moore secondary school

  Waltham Forest: new secondary school

  Westminster: Pimlico School, replacement secondary school

  270W
  Grouped schools

  Birmingham: replacement of 10 schools

  Brent: 32 schools

  Cornwall: 36 schools joint venture

  East Riding: six schools

  East Sussex: five schools

  Haringey: 10 secondary schools

  Kirklees: 20 schools

  Leeds: seven schools

  Liverpool: 32 schools

  Newham: two new primary schools and one new secondary school

  North Yorkshire: four primary schools

  Nottinghamshire: group of six schools

  Richmond: expansion and refurbishment of two primary schools and three new primary schools

  Sandwell: five primary schools

  Sheffield: six schools

  Southampton: expansion, refurbishment and replacement of three secondary schools

  Staffordshire: two schools

  Stoke on Trent: 126 schools

  Tameside: schools rationalisation

  Torbay: two schools

  Tower Hamlets: 47 schools

  Wiltshire: three schools

  Wirral: nine schools

  Other

  Dudley: 104 schools Information and Communication

  Technology—signed

  Lewisham: 90 schools catering—signed

  Department of Health

  Residential Homes

  Enfield: building and running of three new resource centres

  Greenwich: elderly persons' centres

  Harrow—signed

  Northampton: four new specialist centres for older people who are frail or with mental health needs

  Richmond

  Surrey—signed

  Westminster—signed

  Other

  Dudley: multi-use facility

  Harrow: four community resource centres and four houses for people with learning disabilities and mental ill health

  Portsmouth: two day centres for people with learning difficulties Staffordshire: new children's home

  Home Office

  Police HQs

  Cheshire: relocation of HQ and training centre

  Derbyshire: Divisional HQ in Derby—signed

  Norfolk: Force HQ

  Thames Valley: Force HQ—signed

  Police stations

  Cumbria: Workington

  Derbyshire: Ilkeston—signed

  Dorset: Dorchester

  Other Police Schemes

  Cleveland/Durham: firearms range

  Greater Manchester Police: improve efficiency of operational policing

  Metropolitan Police: "3Ci": a new Command, Control, Communications and Information Service

  Northumbria: stables—signed

  Nottinghamshire: area traffic facility

  Sussex: new custody suites

  Wiltshire: helicopters—signed

  271W
  Fire Service

  Avon, Somerset and Gloucester: fire training facility

  Cornwall: fire stations

  Greater Manchester: Stretford, fire headquarters—signed

  Lancashire: fire stations

  London: fire vehicles and equipment

  North Yorkshire: fire training facilities

  Lord Chancellor's Department

  Magistrates Courts

  Avon and Somerset

  Bedfordshire

  Derbyshire

  Hereford, Worcester

  Humberside

  Manchester

  Road User Charging
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will set national guidelines for road user charge exemptions and concessionary discounts. [121277]

  Mr. Hill
  We will consider issuing guidance to local authorities on road user charging exemptions and concessions in due course, to supplement those set through regulations.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make regulations listing the classes of vehicles which will(a) receive discounts and (b) be exempt from road charging schemes. [121278]

  Mr. Hill
  Yes.

  Rent Service Agency
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received regarding the operation of the Rent Service Agency in the last 12 months. [121204]

  Mr. Mullin
  We have received several representations regarding the Rent Service Agency and how rent officers perform their independent statutory functions in connection with housing benefit and registration of fair rents.

  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what statutory powers are available to him in respect of the operation of the Rent Service Agency. [121205]

  Mr. Mullin
  The Rent Act 1977 (as amended) grants the Secretary of State power to appoint, remunerate and provide administrative support for rent officers carrying out their statutory functions. A framework document (which is deposited in the Library of the House) authorises the Chief Executive to carry out these powers.

  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions on rent controls he has had with the Chief Executive of the Rent Service Agency in the last 12 months. [121208]

  Mr. Mullin
  We have regular discussions with the Chief Executive of the Rent Service Agency at official 272W
  and ministerial level about how rent officers perform their independent statutory functions in connection with housing benefit and registration of fair rents.

  Rent Acts (Maximum Fair Rent) Order 1999
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions which Minister in his Department is taking lead responsibility for the proposals contained in the Rent Acts (Maximum Fair Rent) Order 1999. [121206]

  Mr. Mullin
  The Rent Acts (Maximum Fair Rents) Order 1999 was signed by my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning on the basis of a collective decision by Government.

  Landlord and Tenant Act 1985
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what external legal advice he has sought in respect of the use of his powers under section 31 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. [121207]

  Mr. Mullin
  The Treasury Solicitors Department has sought the best advice through the usual channels.

  Sustainable Development
  Mr. Derek Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many meetings have been held at the Trade Union Sustainable Development Advisory Committee since its establishment; who attended them; what subjects were discussed; and if he will make a statement. [120419]

  Mr. Meacher
  Since the formation of the Trades Unions Sustainable Development Advisory Committee in July 1998 there have been six meetings. I have co-chaired them with John Edmonds, General Secretary of the GMB Union. They have been attended by representatives of the Amalgamated Engineering and Electrical Union, the Engineers' and Managers' Association, GMB, the Graphical Paper and Media Union, the Institute of Professionals, Managers and Specialists, the Manufacturing Science Finance Union, the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers, the Transport and General Workers' Union, the Trades Union Congress, the Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians, UNISON and the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers. The Committee has discussed a wide range of sustainable development issues, including climate change, the employment effects of environmental policies, environmental issues in the workplace and workplace training on energy efficiency.

  Montreal Protocol
  Mr. Derek Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the extent of the United Kingdom's compliance to date with the terms of the Montreal Protocol; and when he expects full compliance to be achieved. [120421]

  Mr. Meacher
  The United Kingdom meets its substantive obligations under the Montreal Protocol (1987) through EC Regulation. The European Community
  273W
  and the UK have ratified the Protocol as well as its London (1990) and Copenhagen (1992) Amendments. In addition, they are bound by the adjustments to the Protocol adopted in London (1990), Copenhagen (1992), Vienna (1995) and Montreal (1997). The means by which the Community gives effect internally to all these obligation is EC Regulation 3093/94. Once a further EC Regulation, which is still under negotiation, enters into force later this year the Community and the UK will also be able to ratify the Montreal Amendment (1997).

  Volatile Organic Compounds
  Mr. Derek Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what safety guidance is issued in respect of the storage or use of volatile organic compounds(a) in and (b) near NHS premises; and if he will make a statement. [120426]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Health and Safety Executive has issued no specific safety guidance on the storage or use of volatile organic compounds (VOC) in and near NHS premises.

  The Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 requires all employers to assess the risks to people's health and safety from the undertaking, which would include the storage or use of substances such as VOCs, and to take steps to minimise the risk.

  Refrigerants
  Mr. Derek Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what guidance(a) his Department and (b) NHS Estates gives to health service bodies tendering for refrigeration equipment. [120418]

  Mr. Meacher
  The model framework for greening Government operations—which Government departments have been encouraged to adopt or adapt to meet their special circumstances—promotes environmentally preferable refrigerants having a zero or low potential for ozone depletion or global warming. I cannot answer for NHS Estates as responsibility here rests with the Secretary of State for Health. However, it is DETR's policy not to buy refrigerants containing chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and to avoid hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) and other ozone-depleting substances where there are suitable alternatives. Our policy is also to favour technologies and refrigerants with little or no potential to contribute to global warming where they are safe, cost effective and practicable. Advice on environmentally preferable refrigerants is given in DETR's "Green Guide for Buyers"

  Refrigeration

  Air conditioning

  Aerosols

  Metered dose inhalers

  Other applications

  HFCs

  7,685

  3,766

  1,020

  121

  23 (foam)

  HCFCs

  13,500

  4,000

  0

  0

  Not known

  Ammonia

  Not known

  Not known

  0

  0

  Not known

  Hydrocarbons

  Not known

  Not known

  Not known

  0

  Not known

  CFCs

  6,150

  2,050

  0

  2,483

  Not known

  Note:

  Figures shown in metric tonnes
  274W
  and other guidance which can be found on DETR's website. There are however circumstances—especially with retrofits—where currently available environmentally preferable technologies and refrigerants are not safe or are excessively costly. We are continuing to put pressure on our suppliers to develop more cost effective, safer and greener products.

  Mr. Derek Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions he has had with fire safety experts about the implications of installing(a) hydrocarbon and (b) ammonia-based refrigeration as part of air conditioning systems in public places; and if he will make a statement. [120420]

  Mr. Meacher
  It is the responsibility of any person or company installing hydrocarbon or ammonia-based air conditioning equipment in a public place to ensure that all fire and safety issues are properly addressed. Such installations should follow the guidance set out in British Standard (BS 4434): "Specification for safety and environmental aspects in the design, construction and installation of refrigerating appliances and systems (1995)". The Health and Safety Executive were on the technical committee that drafted BS 443.

  Mr. Derek Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is his policy on the storage and use of(a) hydrocarbons, (b) HFCs and (c) ammonia in (i) refrigeration and (ii) air conditioning systems used by health service bodies. [120423]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Management of Heath and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 require all employers, including health service bodies, to carry out an assessment of risks to people's health and safety form the undertaking, including the effects of hazardous substances. This would include an assessment of the risks from hydrocarbons, HFCs and ammonia used in refrigeration and air conditioning systems.

  Mr. Derek Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is his estimate of the quantity of(a) HFC, (b) HCFC, (c) ammonia, (d) hydrocarbons and (e) CFCs in use in the UK in (i) refrigeration, (ii) air conditioning, (iii) aerosols, (iv) metered dose inhalers and (v) other applications. [R] [120429]

  Mr. Meacher
  The most recent estimates available are given in the table. Data on the use of ammonia and hydrocarbons in the air conditioning and refrigeration sectors are not available; however, their use is relatively minor. In addition, the majority of aerosols manufactured in the UK are filled with hydrocarbons, but data on the amounts used are not available.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Unclaimed Benefits
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the total value by benefit of unclaimed benefits for the latest 12 months for which figures are available. [119851]

  Angela Eagle
  The latest estimates were published in a Departmental press release dated 24 September 1999. I have placed a copy in the Library.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has also recently launched a substantial national take-up campaign for the Minimum Income Guarantee. The campaign will include;
  a national TV advertising campaign;
  writing to over two million pensioners whom Departmental records suggest are most likely to be entitled to the minimum income guarantee; and
  a new free telephone claim service for people to claim without having to leave their homes.

  State Pension
  Dr. George Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the net cost after taxation of an increase in the basic State Pension of(a) £5 per week at age 75 and (b) £10 per week at age 80 years. [120548]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information is in the table.

  Estimate of the net cost after taxation of an increase in the basic State Pension of £5 per week at age 75 and £10 per week at age 80 years

  £ billion

  £5 increase at 75–79, £10 increase at 80

  Gross cost

  1.7

  Net cost after income-related benefits offset

  1.15

  Net cost after income-related benefits offset and taxation

  1

  Notes:

  1. All costs are in £ billion, rounded to the nearest £50 million, and are for 2000–01.

  2. Other benefits, whose rates are linked to the basic State Pension, are not included.

  3. Gross costs estimated by the Government Actuary's Department.

  4. Income-related benefits offsets estimated by Analytical Services Division, Department of Social Security.

  5. Income tax receipts estimated by the Inland Revenue.

  Occupational Pensions
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioners in receipt of(a) income-related benefits, (b) National Insurance-related benefits and (c) in total receive income from an occupational pension. [120360]
  276W
  Mr. Rooker
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the table.

  Pensioner benefit units in receipt of occupational pension income Great Britain, 1997–98

  Occupational pension income recipients also in receipt of:

  Pensioner benefit units in receipt

  Income related benefits

  910,000

  National Insurance related benefits

  4,060,000

  All with occupational pension income

  4,090,000

  Notes:

  1. Estimates are rounded to the nearest 10,000 benefit units, although they are not necessarily accurate to that degree.

  2. Pensioner benefit units are defined as single (non-cohabiting) people over State pension age (men 65 and over, women 60 and over) and couples (married or cohabiting) where the man is over State pension age.

  3. Income-related benefits include Income Support, Family Credit, Housing Benefit. Council Tax Benefit and Social Fund Grants.

  4. National Insurance-related benefits include State Retirement Pension, Widows' Benefits and Incapacity Benefit.

  5. Estimates of benefit income are based on survey respondents' identification of different elements of benefit income, and are therefore subject to misreporting. For example, some respondents may not be able to differentiate between State Retirement Pension and Income Support since both benefits are received in a single payment.

  6. Estimates of the number of pensioner benefit units in receipt of occupational pension are based on survey respondents' own assessment and may be subject to under-reporting.

  Source:

  Family Resources Survey 1997–98

  Parental Leave
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people have claimed Income Support during parental leave in the last 12 months. [120350]

  Mr. Bayley
  The new Income Support rules on parental leave came into effect on 5 January 2000. Early indications from a number of offices are that only a handful of claims have been received so far.

  Benefit Payments
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people chose to have child benefit and pensions paid by automatic transfer into bank accounts in each year since 1992. [120803]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information is in the table.

  Number of customers in receipt of child benefit and pensions1 choosing payment into a bank account since 1992.

  Year2

  Number of child benefit customers choosing ACT

  Number of retirement pension and widows pension customers choosing ACT3

  1992

  1,505,425

  2,392,292

  1993

  1,594,600

  3,043,118

  1994

  1,741,875

  3,315,930

  1995

  1,880,650

  3,543,713

  1996

  2,063,150

  3,854,419

  1997

  2,241,275

  4,014,874

  277W

  Number of customers in receipt of child benefit and pensions1 choosing payment into a bank account since 1992.

  Year2

  Number of child benefit customers choosing ACT

  Number of retirement pension and widows pension customers choosing ACT3

  1998

  2,436,900

  4,272,662

  1999

  2,620,075

  4,554,997

  1 "Pensions" has been interpreted as referring to retirement (RP) and widows (WP) pension, for which details are only available as a combined number.

  2 Date as at November of each year.

  3 These figures exclude pensioners who are entitled to Income Support and receive a combined payment, and include customers resident overseas.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list, for each of the main social security benefits, how many people in each of the last 12 months have contacted his Department and its agencies requesting that their benefit payment be switched to a post office from payment into a bank account. [120987]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Department does not routinely collate the information requested.

  However, as the overall trend on all benefits is an increase in payment into a bank account, it is unlikely that a significant number of customers are changing from payment into a bank account to payment at the post office.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the hon. Member for Walsall, North will receive a reply to his letter of 7 March to the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency regarding a constituent (Ref. E24618). [121260]

  Angela Eagle
  A reply was issued to my hon. Friend on 4 May 2000.

  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he will respond to the letter from the hon. Member for North Thanet dated 11 April concerning non-payment of widows' payment to Mrs. Corrina Smith and similar cases. [121110]

  Angela Eagle
  A reply was issued today.

  Child Benefit
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the distribution of Child Benefit expenditure according to(a) the gross income bands, (b) the equivalised gross income bands and (c) the equivalised net income bands of recipient families using (i) each band of £5,000 up to £40,000 and (ii) over £40,000. [121104]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is in the table.

  Expenditure on Child Benefit by band of income and the number of children in each income band

  Gross income

  Equivalised gross income

  Equivalised net income

  Less than £5,000

  £90 million (0.2 million)

  £200 million (0.4 million)

  £290 million (0.5 million)

  278W

  Expenditure on Child Benefit by band of income and the number of children in each income band

  Gross income

  Equivalised gross income

  Equivalised net income

  £5-£10,000

  £970 million (1.6 million)

  £1,930 million (3.4 million)

  £2,530 million (4.4 million)

  £10-£15,000

  £1,260 million (2.1 million)

  £1,550 million (2.7 million)

  £2,070 million (3.6 million)

  £15-£20,000

  £960 million (1.7 million)

  £1,230 million (2.2 million)

  £1,130 million (2.0 million)

  £20-£25,000

  £850 million (1.5 million)

  £830 million (1.5 million)

  £570 million (1.0 million)

  £25-£30,000

  £770 million (1.4 million)

  £520 million (0.9 million)

  £290 million (0.5 million)

  £3O-£35,000

  £590 million (1.0 million)

  £340 million (0.6 million)

  £120 million (0.2 million)

  £35-£40,000

  £470 million (0.9 million)

  £200 million (0.4 million)

  £70 million (0.1 million)

  £40,000 and above

  £1,250 million (2.3 million)

  £410 million (0.7 million)

  £140 million (0.3 million)

  Notes

  1. Information is taken from Households Below Average income (HBAI) 1997–98 based on the Family Resources Survey 1997–98.

  2. All figures are in April 1999 prices.

  3. The expenditure of Child Benefit has been estimated using benefit receipt on HBAI. Therefore the expenditure in this table will not exactly match published expenditure figures.

  4. The figures in parentheses are the number of children in each band of income.

  5. Estimates of expenditure are rounded to the nearest £100 million. Numbers of children are rounded to the nearest 100,000.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Ms Julie Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of appeals against decisions to refuse Disability Living Allowance were successful in(a) Wales, (b) Scotland and (c) England in the last year for which figures are available. [120931]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the table.

  Figures for each of the appeals service regional offices

  Total

  In appellants favour

  Percentage

  Great Britain

  51,827

  25,234

  48.7

  Birmingham

  5,442

  2,398

  44.1

  Cardiff

  6,886

  3,438

  49.9

  Glasgow

  8,402

  4,072

  48.5

  Leeds

  4,458

  2,312

  51.9

  Liverpool

  6,759

  2,991

  44.3

  Nottingham

  7,235

  3,644

  50.4

  Newcastle

  3,965

  1,901

  47.9

  Salford

  3,914

  1,688

  43.1

  Sutton

  4,766

  2,790

  58.5

  Notes:

  1. The figures relate to all Disability Living Allowance (DLA) appeals heard between 1 January 1999 and 31 December 1999.

  2. We are unable to identify the reason for the appeals against DLA decisions. The figures will include appeals for other reasons as well as refusal of benefits.

  Source:

  100 per cent. download from the Appeals Service database computer system.

  Pensioner Incomes
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate how many pensioners would
  279W
  benefit financially and what the average benefit would be from reducing the tariff income from capital from the present rate to £1 per week for every £500 over £6,000 for people aged over 60 years. [121274]

  Mr. Bayley
  The information is in the table.

  The estimated number of pensioners benefiting and the average gain as a result of a reduction to the tariff income of £1 a week for every £500 over £6,000

  Total gainers (000)

  Average gain (£1s per week)

  Income Support (IS)

  60

  4.55

  Housing Benefit (HB)

  80

  3.70

  Council Tax Benefit (CTB)

  160

  1.25

  Notes:

  1. Cases have been rounded to the nearest 5,000 for each benefit, and prices to the nearest 5 pence.

  2. This costing is carried out following the extension of the capital limits to £6,000 and £12,000 for Income Support, and £6,000 and £16,000 for Housing Benefit, and has been adjusted to caseload forecasts for 2001–02.

  3. It is not possible to provide a total number of gainers overall, as there is considerable overlap. Gainers on HB and/or CTB may float on to IS, while gainers on HB may also gain CTB.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the cost of reducing the tariff income from capital from the present rate to £1 per week for every £500 over £6,000 for people aged over 60 years. [121275]

  Mr. Bayley
  The information is in the table.

  The estimated cost of reducing the tariff income to £1 a week for every £500 over £6,000 in 2001–02

  £ million

  Benefit

  Total cost

  Income Support

  15

  Housing Benefit

  15

  Council Tax Benefit

  10

  Total

  40

  Notes:

  1. This question has been answered using the Policy Simulation Model (PSM) for Income Related benefits, based on 1997–98 Family Resources Survey data.

  2. Figures are rounded to the nearest £5 million and uprated to 2000–01 prices and benefit levels.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Tritium
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much Tritium has been produced at the Chapelcross nuclear facility in each month since April 1995; and what percentage of the Tritium produced by this facility has been traded to Governments and agencies outside the United Kingdom. [120750]

  Mr. Hoon
  I have been asked to reply.

  I refer the hon. Member to the answers I gave to the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Welsh) on 3 April 2000, Official Report, column 303W, and my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) on 3 May 2000, Official Report, columns 118–19W.

  Export Licences
  Mr. Berry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry for what reason the 1998 Annual report on Strategic Exports does not include information about physical exports of strategic goods from the UK to the Channel Islands. [120204]

  Dr. Howells
  Details of the value of UK exports and of the number of weapons including small arms was taken from information collected by HM Customs and Excise for trade statistics purposes. For these, the Channel Islands are regarded as part of the UK and thus movements between the UK and the Channel Islands are not recorded.

  However, the 1997 and 1998 Annual Reports on Strategic Export Controls listed by country of destination the numbers of export licences issued and refused in each equipment category and gave details of the military equipment for which licences had been granted. They also set out the value of defence exports to each country. Entries were included for the Channel Islands.

  Energy Production
  Sir Robert Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what percentage of Scottish energy production is from(a) nuclear power, (b) coal, (c) oil and (d) renewable sources. [120747]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The most recently available figures for the indigenous production of primary fuels in Scotland are for 1998. Data are, however, not available without disproportionate cost for oil (or gas) production from Scotland or Scottish waters, so it is not possible to calculate the shares of nuclear power, coal or renewables.

  Million tonnes of oil equivalent Scotland

  Nuclear

  4.8

  Coal

  5.2

  Oil

  1.2—

  Renewables

  3 0.7–0.9

  1 Not available

  2 The Department's annual report "Development of the Oil and Gas Resources of the United Kingdom", copies of which are available in the Library of the House, contains details of the location and production of oil and gas from all fields on the UK Continental Shelf.

  3 Renewable energy production statistics are collected on a UK wide basis only. The figure for Scotland is an estimate mainly based on generating capacities at 31 December 1998.

  Source:

  British Energy, The Coal Authority, DTI estimates.

  Competitiveness Development Fund
  Mr. Stevenson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the allocation from the Competitiveness Development Fund to the West Midlands Region; and if he will list schemes supported by the fund in the North Staffordshire sub-region. [120396]

  Mr. Caborn
  The DTI's Competitiveness Development Fund (CDF) is available to Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) to spend on priorities they identify for increasing competitiveness in their regions. The CDF allocation to Advantage West Midlands (the
  281W
  RDA for the West Midlands Region) for this Financial Year (2000–01) is £440,000, which represents an increase in funding of over 75 per cent. compared to the previous financial year.

  Advantage West Midlands used its CDF allocation of £250,000 for the last financial year (1999–2000) to support a wide range of projects that were designed to have a region-wide effect: none were specifically limited to North Staffordshire. These projects included work on promoting enterprise and innovation, encouraging best practice and developing supply chains.

  Sellafield
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received from(a) Members of Parliament, (b) representatives from other parliaments and assemblies and (c) Ministers from other Governments, in respect of the dangers posed by the operation of Sellafield, in each month since January 1999; and what response he has made. [120712]

  Mrs. Liddell
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has received a number of representations by correspondence, Parliamentary Question or in person in relation to the safety of operations at Sellafield. Each has been carefully considered and appropriate responses, addressing the issues raised, have been provided. The table lists the representations made since January 1999. In the case of Parliamentary Questions, the responses were of course published in Hansard.

  (a) Members of Parliament

  (c) Ministers from other Governments

  January 1999

  0

  0

  February 1999

  2

  0

  March 1999

  0

  0

  April 1999

  0

  0

  May 1999

  0

  1

  June 1999

  0

  0

  July 1999

  1

  0

  August 1999

  1

  0

  September 1999

  1

  0

  October 1999

  1

  0

  November 1999

  2

  0

  December 1999

  0

  0

  January 2000

  1

  0

  February 2000

  2

  2

  March 2000

  5

  1

  April 2000

  0

  0

  Note:

  There have been no representations from public representatives from the Scottish Parliament or Welsh Assembly (b).

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessments have been undertaken by(a) his Department and (b) the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate/Health and Safety Executive of the (i) accident risk and (ii) accident consequences of the operation of Sellafield since May 1997. [120713]

  Mrs. Liddell
  It is for the licensee of a nuclear site—BNFL in the case of Sellafield—to assess both the accident risk and potential accident consequences of its operations as part of a comprehensive safety case for each operation. This information must be updated with changing circumstances. As required under the terms of 282W
  the Sellafield site licence conditions these safety cases are presented to the Site Nuclear Safety Committee, which includes independent members.

  The role of HSE is to analyse these safety cases in detail to verify that they are sound. Regular on-site inspections by the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate (NII) seek to confirm that the limits and conditions contained in the safety cases are complied with in the plant at all times. HSE/NII publishes information about its assessments of particular plant from time to time; a recent example is its report "The storage of liquid high level waste at BNFL, Sellafield", which deals with the B215 complex which includes the highly active liquor tanks.

  The Department of Trade and Industry has no role in this independent regulatory process.

  Motor Industry (State Aid)
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer of 17 April 2000,Official Report, column 323W, concerning state aid to the motor industry, where the EU publishes information about rules and criteria for these purposes. [120741]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  Under Article 87(1) of the Treaty of Rome (as amended by Amsterdam), the Commission may develop 'appropriate measures' for State aid by issuing frameworks or codes. These frameworks describe the practice the Commission intends to follow when examining aid proposals, and generally set limits on the intensity of assistance which may be paid within the State aid rules.

  The framework are published in the Official Journal, and are available in full on the Commission's website at www.europa.eu.int/comm/dg04/lawaid.htm.

  The Official Journal reference for the Motor Vehicle framework is: OJ C279, 15.9.1997.p1.

  Employment and Tribunal Claims
  Ms Julie Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer of 13 April 2000,Official Report, columns 273–76W, concerning employment and tribunal claims, if he will make it his policy to produce separate statistics for Wales, England and Scotland; and if he will provide the figures requested on that basis. [121045]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The Employment Tribunals Service (ETS) records information on tribunal applications, for statistical purposes, by the office where they are handled rather than by the place where the action arose. ETS offices may, for operational and judicial reasons, handle cases arising in England or Wales and it is not therefore possible to provide figures in the form requested. Tribunals operate within the same policy framework across Great Britain and I have no plans to change the current policy on provision of such figures.

  Telecommunications Council
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the outcome of the Telecommunications Council held in Brussels on 2 May; and if he will make a statement. [120991]
  283W
  Ms Hewitt
  There was an orientation debate on the review of the regulatory framework for electronic communications. During the debate all member states supported the general approach of the Commission on regulation of access to infrastructures in order to promote competition. A number, including the UK, welcomed the Commission's proposal that regulation should be on a co-regulatory basis with business where possible. Regarding the new institutional structure, member states welcomed the Commission's intention to build on the existing structure, but define the roles of any new bodies. On the scope of universal service, most member states, including the UK, supported the Commission's proposal to retain the existing scope of universal service, but to keep this under review.

  The Commission presented its Communication on the World Radiocommunication Conference 2000 and the Council adopted Conclusions giving broad support to the Communication.

  The Commission also presented a number of recent or forthcoming Communications concerning: the results of its consultation on creation of the EU internet top level domain; organisation and management of the internet; unbundled access to the local loop; and gave an update on the forthcoming postal services liberalisation Directive. The Council also noted Presidency reports on the outcome of the Conference on Digital Terrestrial Television, and the Ministerial Conference on Knowledge and the Information Society held in Lisbon on 17–18 February and 10–11 April 2000 respectively.

  A3XX Project
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assumptions were made in his Department's appraisal of the A3XX project about the likely demand for these aircraft from airlines flying into and out of UK airports, with specific reference to Heathrow. [121027]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  In appraising the A3XX project the Department undertook a full market study of the aircraft's prospects. Details of this report are commercially confidential, but a key market rationale of the A3XX is to carry large numbers of passengers from hub to hub. We would therefore expect Heathrow to be one of the airports where the A3XX would operate. The A3XX has been designed to meet the most stringent environment and noise standards.

  Assisted Areas Map
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will re-include the Farnworth and Kearsley wards in the assisted status map as it affects the Bolton metropolitan borough. [120846]

  Mr. Caborn
  The consultation period on the amended proposals for the new Assisted Areas ended on 2 May. The Government are considering carefully the representations received, including those relating to Bolton, and will be discussing the representations received with the European Commission. The new Assisted Areas are subject to approval by the Commission.
  284W
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what information about wards included in and excluded from the assisted areas map was given to representatives of the media by(a) ministers, (b) special advisers and (c) officials in his Department before Monday 10 April. [121049]

  Mr. Caborn
  No advance information about wards included in or excluded from the revised assisted areas map was distributed to the media before Monday 10 April.

  Zenith Milk
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if Zenith Milk will be permitted to process milk. [120807]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 5 May 2000]: The Director General of Fair Trading (DGFT) has advised that Milk Link, Axis and Zenith, the three successors to Milk Marque, have been operating independent arrangements for the marketing and selling of their members' milk this winter.

  Following that advice, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry announced on 2 May that, on the basis that the assurances given last year of independent operation will continue to be observed, he can see no reason why Milk Link, Axis, and Zenith should not establish or extend their processing activities if they choose to do so.

  The assurances given were that all policy making and selling of milk would be carried out independently by each of the successors with no joint ventures between the new businesses in marketing or processing milk, with no common directors and no shareholdings by any one of the new businesses in either of the others. Milk Marque also stated that they would not supply to the successor bodies, after 31 March 2001, central services which could not be split prior to the reorganisation which took place last year.

  Should the new businesses choose to extend their processing activities through acquisition they will of course be subject to the merger provisions under competition law in the same way as any other company. In addition, Milk Link, Axis and Zenith must, like all undertakings, operate their businesses in accordance with both domestic and European competition law.

  Second Class Post
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on his policy on the future of the second class post. [121267]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The Government have no proposals to abolish second class mail. The Post Office tell me that no such proposals have been submitted to the Post Office Board, nor are any expected.

  Ilisu Dam
  Ms Kingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer of 13 April 2000,Official Report, column 273W, which British banks are included in the lending syndicate for the Ilisu Dam project. [121019]
  285W
  Mr. Caborn
  The lending syndicate for the Ilisu Dam project has not yet been formed, and is unlikely to be formed until after the export credit agencies have made their decisions regarding support for the project.

  Sudan
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent discussions he has had with BP Amoco concerning its investment with Talisman Energy and the China National Petroleum Corporation operating in Sudan. [120269]

  Mr. Caborn
  [pursuant to his reply, on 2 May 2000, c. 29W]: I would like to point out that BP Amoco has no operations or investment in Sudan. Furthermore, BP Amoco's business and ethical policies preclude such involvement.

WALES

  Corus
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent meetings he has had with Corns; and if he will make a statement. [120930]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I have had meetings with the Chief Executive of Corns and visited the Corns Steelworks at Shotton.

  The Government recognise that Corns is one of the most efficient steel producers.

  The Government fully understand the importance of a successful manufacturing sector; steel is making a vital contribution to the economy and employment.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Pig Farming (Aid)
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made by the EU Commission in setting up a regulatory fund to aid pig farmers. [119704]

  Ms Quin
  The European Commission has come forward with a proposal to introduce a European Regulatory Fund for pig producers. An initial statement about the proposal was made by the European Commission at the Agriculture Council on 17 April. As presented, it does not provide for funding from the EU Budget; rather it is proposed to be a voluntary fund, financed by pig producers themselves.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Chester Amphitheatre
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, what arrangements have been made to allow archaeological research to be undertaken at the Amphitheatre, Chester, before construction commences on a new court building on any part of that site. [121272]
  286W
  Jane Kennedy
  The site is owned by a developer, David McLean Developments Ltd., with whom the Court Service has entered into an agreement to lease. Following demolition of the British Telecommunications building which occupied the same footprint as the new building, David McLean Developments Ltd. funded an intensive series of archaeological excavations in consultation with the City Archaeologist and English Heritage. These excavations impacted upon the design of the building and as a result it has been possible to avoid disturbing the remains of the amphitheatre beneath. In fact, the foundations of the new building have been carefully designed to avoid any remains and to preserve them in situ, for posterity.

  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, if a binding contract has been signed for the construction of a new court building on any part of the Amphitheatre site in Chester. [121271]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Court Service signed a legally binding contract with the Developer, David McLean Developments Ltd., on 20 December 1999 whereby the Court Service is legally bound to occupy the building within 21 days of the completion of its construction. The Court Service were aware of the location of the site and of its archaeological significance, but all appropriate approvals in relation to both planning and preservation had been obtained by the developers.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Railways
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the independent review of Northern Ireland railways, which was published on Tuesday 28 March; and if he will make a statement. [119563]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Government welcome the publication of the strategic safety review of Northern Ireland Railways. The extensive recommendations cover all aspects of the operation of the system and the Government are considering, with Translink, how best to target developments. A high level task force has been created to report as soon as possible on the options for the future of the railways in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what measures the Government will adopt to improve the railway service in Northern Ireland. [119562]

  Mr. Ingram
  A task force has been established that will identify, within the wider strategic context of the future development of transportation in Northern Ireland, a range of options for the future of the railway network. It will look at the costs, benefits and affordability of these options. The task force is expected to present its assessment by the summer. The future level of funding for the railway system in Northern Ireland will be considered as part of the 2000 Spending Review.

  Parades Commission
  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what factors led to the decision to
  287W
  increase the remuneration for the Chairman of the Parades Commission, commencing with the February appointment of a new person to that post. [119831]

  Mr. Ingram
  The decision was based on the need to secure as wide a pool of candidates as possible for the post.

  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations were made during his Department's review of the Parades Commission against changing more than half of the commissioners from the previous Commission when appointing the new Commission; and what such representations were made in the six months prior to the commissioners' appointment. [119842]

  Mr. Ingram
  The composition of the Parades Commission was outside the terms of reference of the review, and no representations were received along the lines indicated.

  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many times the full membership of the Parades Commission has met since the new members were appointed in February. [119841]

  Mr. Ingram
  Since the appointment of the new members to the Parades Commission, the Chairman and six members have met on three occasions and a further 11 meetings have been attended by a quorum of at least three members.

  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many days the Chairman of the Parades Commission has spent in Northern Ireland since his appointment in February. [119832]

  Mr. Ingram
  Between the 17 February and the 27 April 2000, the Chairman of the Parades Commission has visited Northern Ireland on 11 occasions, for a total of 20 days and 11 nights.

  Royal Victoria Hospital
  Mr. Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to his answer of 6 April 2000,Official Report, column 568W, on the Royal Victoria Hospital, how much of the Royal Group of Hospital HSS Trust's funding was spent on the new railings and perimeter wall of the hospital. [119783]

  Mr. George Howarth
  It is estimated that approximately £87,000 of Trust capital funding will be used for this part of the project. The remainder of the Trust's contribution will be provided from charitable funds and a public appeal.

  Birth Certificates
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for what purposes his Department requires a birth certificate to be furnished by(a) employees, (b) contractors, (c) those applying for employment and contracts and (d) other persons. [120315]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Northern Ireland Office, Northern Ireland Government Departments and their respective Agencies may ask individuals to provide their birth 288W
  certificate in a range of circumstances. An individual's birth certificate may be used for one or more of the following reasons:

  proof of identity

  proof of eligibility under the Civil Service nationality rules

  proof of age.

  Environmental Protection Agency
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he will establish an Environmental Protection Agency for Northern Ireland. [120754]

  Mr. George Howarth
  There are no plans at present to establish an Environmental Protection Agency for Northern Ireland. The Environment and Heritage Service, a Next Steps Executive Agency within the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland, was set up on 1 April 1996 to assume operational responsibility for environmental issues. At devolution, the Northern Ireland Assembly decided to place environment and heritage responsibilities in the new Department of the Environment. I would expect any re-examination of the way in which such matters are handled to be considered by the devolved administration.

  Sellafield
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in relation to plutonium pollution arising from processing activities at the Sellafield Mixed Oxide Plant, in respect of the hazards posed to(a) people, (b) flora and (c) fauna in Northern Ireland. [120708]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Lord Dubs, then Minister for the Environment in Northern Ireland, and his officials were kept informed by Ministerial colleagues in Whitehall regarding the commissioning and full operation of the Mixed Oxide Plant (MOX Plant), including projected environmental impact on the people, flora and fauna. In particular, during early 1997 and 1998 the Environment Agency held three consultation exercises regarding the commissioning and operation of the MOX plant and the variations to Certificates of Authorisation to dispose of gaseous and liquid wastes from the Sellafield site.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will establish a study into the environmental effects of the operation of Sellafield on the(a) flora, (b) fauna and (c) fisheries of Northern Ireland. [120709]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Environment and Heritage Service under its acting chief executive, Mr. J. R. Lamont.

  I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from J. R. Lamont to Mr. Eddie McGrady, dated 3 May 2000:
  As Acting Chief Executive of the Environment and Heritage Service (EHS), I am responsible for operational aspects of protection of the environment on behalf of the Department of the Environment. I am responding to the Parliamentary Question you put down on 26 April asking for a study into the environmental effects of the operation of Sellafield on the flora, fauna and fisheries of Northern Ireland.

  289W
  In Northern Ireland, a comprehensive monitoring programme which is operated by EHS's Industrial Pollution and Radiochemical Inspectorate, has been in place since the early 1970s. The programme is reviewed on an annual basis to ensure that any changes in discharges from the Sellafield Plant are carefully assessed.
  Discharges into the Irish Sea from the Sellafield Plant are authorised by the Environment Agency. The Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture (CEFAS), formerly the Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food (MAFF) has been sampling and analysing seawater, fish, shellfish, seaweed and sediments in the Irish Sea since the early 1950s. In Northern Ireland, our Inspectorate arranges for samples of seaweed, sediments, fish. nephrops, mussels and winkles to be collected quarterly and forwarded to the CEFAS Research laboratory at Lowestoft. The seaweeds are collected in the Ards Peninsula area and at Portrush and the marine life samples are obtained as far as possible from commercial landings, at Kilkeel and Portavogie. Sediments samples are collected from Northern Ireland's 5 marine loughs.
  The Northern Ireland results are published annually in a report entitled "Radioactivity in Food and the Environment" issued by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF) and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) and also in the Northern Ireland Abstract of Statistics. The levels of radioactivity measured indicate that they are of negligible radiological significance.
  In addition to this programme, the Inspectorate monitors with gamma dose rate in air over intertidal sediments in each district council area which has a coastline. The results indicate minimal radioactivity deposition and are consistent with normal background levels.
  We have also undertaken a number of collaborative studies with the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland and University College Dublin since 1990. A copy of the joint report on Carlingford Lough is available in the Library of the House of Commons.
  I can report that on average, people in Northern Ireland receive 2500 microsieverts of radiation a year from all natural and artificial sources; 50 per cent. is due to exposure to radon in the home. 12 per cent. from medical exposure and nuclear discharges accounts for less than 0.1 per cent.
  In view of the comprehensive information already available from the monitoring programme there are no plans to establish a separate study at this time. I can assure you, however, that the Department will continue with the monitoring programme in view of local concerns.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Church Repairs
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, what recent discussions he has held with the Financial Secretary on reducing VAT on church repairs. [119907]

  Mr. Stuart Bell
  Following my Adjournment Debate last November, the Church has kept in close touch with the Government. The hon. Lady will be aware that Ministers have confirmed that there is no general relief from VAT on repair costs for churches and the Government's current agreement with their European partners means that new zero rates cannot be introduced. While there is no provision for a reduced rate of VAT under Annex H to the Sixth Directive, it applies only to social housing and not churches.

  The Church will continue to press its case for a more equitable tax position in this field.

  Investments
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, what are his estimates of the Church's return on investments for the next three years. [119909]

  Mr. Stuart Bell
  The Church Commissioners' policy is to be fully invested in asset classes which experience shows should yield the most satisfactory returns over the long term. Their forecasts are accordingly directed towards the longer timescale.

  Clergy
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, if he will make a statement on the terms and conditions of employment of the clergy. [119910]

  Mr. Stuart Bell
  Terms and conditions vary slightly from diocese to diocese, but should include a stipend (based on a national stipend benchmark of £16,420) free accommodation (or a housing allowance) and the full reimbursement of all working expenses. Clergy are not employed, but are office holders.

  Church Running Costs
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, what contribution the commissioners have made towards the running costs of the Church of England in 1999. [119911]

  Mr. Stuart Bell
  In 1999 the Commissioners contributed £156.1 million in support for the Church's ministry, including an element targeted specifically towards parish ministry in those dioceses most in need of financial help. The total meets some 20 per cent. of the Church's overall running costs of approximately £760 million in 1999.

  The larger share of the Church's running costs is provided by parishioners. This includes the major new commitment taken on by parishes in the shape of funding clergy pensions earned after 1998.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Pre-school Education
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many places have been available in local authority-run playgroups in each of the past seven years for each local authority; and if he will make a statement. [117271]

  Ms Hodge
  Virtually all playgroups are in the voluntary sector with only a few run by local education authorities. Information about places in local authority-run playgroups is contained in tables, copies of which have been placed in the Library. The Department has collected information on playgroup places in England only since 1998. Prior to 1998, information on playgroups was collected by the Department of Health and their national figures have also been shown in the table for completeness.
  291W
  My Department plans to publish provisional national information about places in local authority-run playgroups (as at 31 March 2000) in July.

  New Deal for Schools
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list each grant made to schools in Shrewsbury and Atcham under the New Deal for Schools programme; and if he will make a statement. [120369]

  Jacqui Smith
  The following table shows the allocations made to schools in Shrewsbury and Atcham under the New Deal for Schools programme, which formed part of the total allocation of £5,677,761 made to Shropshire Local Education Authority.

  Table of New Deal for Schools allocations—Shrewsbury and Atcham constituency

  £

  NDS 1 1997–98

  NDS 2 1998–99

  NDS 3 1999–2000

  NDS 4 2000–01

  Unable to identify individual schools for NDS 1 as the allocation was made for an LEA wide ICT strategy package at 16 secondary and 23 primary schools. Total allocation to Shropshire LEA was £185,0001

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Wilfred Owen County Primary School—Replacement of classroom

  —

  37,950

  —

  —

  Shrewsbury Severndale Special School—Replacement of classrooms

  —

  89,980

  —

  —

  Shrewsbury Harlescott County Junior School—Re-covering to roof of demountable classroom

  —

  7,632

  —

  —

  Woodfield County Infant School—Re-covering to roof of demountable classroom

  —

  1,906

  —

  —

  Belvedere School—Renewal of roof coverings to demountable classrooms

  —

  3,816

  —

  —

  Meole Brace School—Renewal of roof coverings to demountable classrooms

  —

  1,908

  —

  —

  Meole Brace School—Replace leaking roof

  —

  —

  66,000

  —

  Unable to identify individual schools in a package to improve inadprecautions—Total allocation £517,200 in NDS 31

  —

  —

  —

  —

  292W

  Table of New Deal for Schools allocations—Shrewsbury and Atcham constituency

  £

  NDS 1 1997–98

  NDS 2 1998–99

  NDS 3 1999–2000

  NDS 4 2000–01

  Unable to identify individual schools in a package to identify asbestos—Total allocation £317,002 in NDS31

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Condover CE Primary School—Replacement of HORSA building

  —

  —

  —

  265,299

  Holy Cross CE Junior School—Replacement of temporary classroom

  —

  —

  —

  38,700

  Shrewsbury Radbrooke Primary School—Replacement of hard play area

  —

  —

  —

  32,943

  Severndale School—Replace heating systems

  —

  —

  —

  65,789

  Bomere Heath CE Primary School—Improvement to IT/GP areas in seven schools. Total package allocation £180,093 in NDS 41

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Wilfred Owen School—Roof repairs in four schools. Total package allocation £216,889 in NDS 41

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Springfield Infants School—Roof repairs in three schools. Total package allocation £184,694 in NDS 4'

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Springfield Infants School—Refenestration to SCOLA buildings in two schools. Total package allocation £143,106 in NDS 41

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1 Information on the allocations made to those schools in the Shrewsbury and Atcham constituency is held by Shropshire LEA

  Class Sizes (Infants)
  Mr. Michael J. Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many infant classes had over 30 pupils in(a) 1997, (b) 1998, (c) 1999 and (d) 2000 in the City of Worcester. [120594]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Information on key stage one class sizes collected in January for the Parliamentary constituency of Worcester is shown in the following table.

  Provisional national estimates of key stage one class sizes for January 2000 were recently published in a Statistical First Release 'Class sizes in maintained schools in England: January 2000 (15/2000)' on 12 April 2000. Class size information broken down by local education authority area is also available from the House of Commons Library.
  293W
  National figures for Infant class sizes in September 1999 were published in Statistical First Release 'Infant class sizes in England (2/2000)' on 21 January 2000.

  Number of key stage 1 classes taught by one teacher with more than 30 pupils in maintained primary schools in the Parliamentary constituency of Worcester: 1997–2000

  Position as at January

  Number of key stage 1 classes with more than 30 pupils

  All classes

  Percentage

  20001

  12

  112

  10.7

  1999

  13

  116

  11.2

  1998

  28

  111

  25.2

  1997

  21

  112

  18.8

  1 Provisional

  National Anthem
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the teaching of the National Anthem in state schools. [121020]

  Jacqui Smith
  There are opportunities to teach about the National Anthem in the curriculum, which schools may take up if they wish.

  Key Stages 2 and 3
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will request that the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority cease the practice of selling Key Stages 2 and 3 past papers to BBC Educational. [121093]

  Jacqui Smith
  No. The QCA has a contract with BBC Educational allowing them to publish past Key Stages 2 and 3 test papers together with a guide book for parents. The test papers are reproduced for the previous year in order to help parents understand the nature of the test which their children are taking. The approach is consistent with two general policies of making the tests available for general use and encouraging parents to help their children prepare for the tests.

  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to improve the training of end of Key Stage 2 test markers. [121092]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA) has responsibility for the development, administration and marking of the National Curriculum tests, on behalf of the Secretary of State, and takes considerable care in the development and marking arrangements for all the tests. This was reflected in the findings of the Rose Review, an independent cross-party panel set up last year to consider the test development and assessment arrangements at Key Stage 2. As part of the quality control of marking, each external marking agency evaluates the training programme for each year and makes recommendations for change or improvement. In addition the QCA seeks the views of a sample of markers on all aspects of the process, including training. Such feedback is put into the continuous programme of improvement conducted year-on-year.
  294W
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment whether he expects teachers to check the marking of end of Key Stage 2 test papers on their return from the external marking agency. [121090]

  Jacqui Smith
  Teachers are not expected to check the marking of test papers on their return from the external marking agency. However, teachers may wish to use the tests as a means of providing feedback to pupils on their performance and, in order to do this, they would have to review the pupils' marks against the markscheme. It is for schools to decide whether and how to use the tests in reviewing pupils performance. Teachers may also have doubts about the final level awarded to any pupil. If they decide to request a formal review of the marking in the test, they would need to refer to the markscheme in order to identify errors and provide a reason for a review.

  Anti-drugs Policy
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what discussions he has had with the directors of London education authorities on developing the Government's anti-drugs policy in schools within their authority areas. [121121]

  Jacqui Smith
  The main vehicle for anti-drugs education is the Personal, Social and Health Education Framework which was issued in November 1999. This was developed after extensive national consultation, and the views of Local Education Authorities were taken on board as part of that process.

  Jobcentre, Chelmsford
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many vacancies were notified to the Chelmsford jobcentre in each of the last 12 months for which figures are available. [120347]

  Ms Jowell
  The number of vacancies notified to the Chelmsford Jobcentre during the months April 1999 to March 2000 were as follows.

  Number

  1999

  April

  627

  May

  718

  June

  636

  July

  711

  August

  897

  September

  608

  October

  1,104

  November

  559

  December

  545

  2000

  January

  322

  February

  529

  March

  563

  Jobseeker's Agreement
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what procedure is followed in cases where a jobseeker and an employment office cannot reach agreement on the details of a jobseeker's agreement; and if he will make a statement. [120081]
  295W
  Ms Jowell
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service agency under its Chief Executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Mark Neale to Mr. Lembit Opik, dated 8 May 2000:
  As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has asked Leigh Lewis to reply to your question about the procedure that is followed where a jobseeker and an employment officer cannot reach agreement on the details of a Jobseeker's Agreement. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to Mr. Lewis as Chief Executive of the Employment Service. I am replying in his absence.
  Jobseeker's Allowance regulations set out the conditions for the receipt of Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA). These include a requirement that a jobseeker must have a Jobseeker's Agreement which both the jobseeker and the employment officer have signed. The contents of the Agreement are negotiated between the Jobseeker and the employment officer at the initial interview when a claim for JSA is made.
  If the adviser and Jobseeker cannot agree the Jobseeker's Agreement, the case is referred to an independent Sector Decision Maker for consideration.
  The Sector Decision Maker can determine the contents of a Jobseeker's Agreement and issue a direction that the jobseeker should comply with. The direction will state what the contents of the Jobseeker's Agreement should be and enable the jobseeker to satisfy the availability and actively seeking employment conditions. If the Jobseeker's Agreement is not signed by the jobseeker following the Decision Maker's determination, the Jobseeker's Agreement will not be valid and Jobseeker's Allowance will not be paid.
  I hope this is helpful.

PRIME MINISTER

  "Wiring it Up"
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Prime Minister from what date conclusion No. 1 of the Performance and Innovation Unit report, "Wiring it Up", took effect for Cabinet Minsters; and what steps were taken to draw this to their attention. [114387]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 13 March 2000]: Conclusion number one of the Performance and Innovation Unit's report, "Wiring it Up", took effect from the date of its publication on 13 January 2000. I am, of course, in regular touch with Cabinet Ministers about their responsibilities. In addition, in explaining their work to new Cabinet Ministers I will take account of conclusion number one.

  Sellafield
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations he has received from councillors in the United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland in respect of Sellafield since 1 April. [120251]

  The Prime Minister
  I have received one representation from a councillor in the Republic of Ireland in respect of Sellafield since 1 April.

  Depleted Uranium
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 12 April 2000,Official Report, column 200W, on the use by NATO of depleted uranium
  296W
  against Yugoslavia, what steps he will recommend that NATO takes to monitor (a) Serbian civilians, (b) ethnic Albanian civilians, (c) the environment of Western Kosovo and (d) the environment of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia for the effects of the use of depleted uranium. [119503]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 3 May 2000]: As my earlier answer noted, NATO is co-operating with the United Nations in the on-going work of the UN Environment Programme into the environmental consequences of the Kosovo conflict. The United Kingdom has contributed over £50,000 to this work. We will study carefully the conclusions reached by the UNEP Balkans Task Force.

  London Mayor
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister what contacts he has had with the Mayor-elect of London; and if he will make a statement. [120934]

  The Prime Minister
  I spoke to the Mayor by telephone during the course of the weekend. I will have further conversations and meetings with him as appropriate.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Hilary Senn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if it is his policy that the value of toys and groceries given by charities to those seeking asylum should be deducted from benefits paid to such persons. [119919]

  Mrs. Roche
  In determining whether an applicant for support is eligible for support and if so what the appropriate level of support should be, the National Asylum Support Service will take into account substantial and continuing support to meet accommodation or other essential living needs being provided by charities (or any other body or person) to the asylum seeker. The Service will normally disregard one off or very small donations of groceries or other support.

  Donations of toys whether from charities or any other source will not be taken into account.

  Birth Certificates
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what purposes his Department requires a birth certificate to be furnished by(a) employees, (b) contractors, (c) those applying for employment and contracts and (d) other persons. [120317]

  Mr. Straw
  Birth certificates are one of the documents requested as proof of identity and age for recruitment and pension purposes. They are also normally required for the issue of passports and for applications to remain in the United Kingdom on the basis of marriage to a British Citizen. My Department does not normally require existing employees or contractors to provide birth certificates.

  Crime Fighting Fund
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the number of police he intends should be recruited nationally in 2000–01 as a result of the crime fighting fund; and what the cost will be of this recruitment. [120486]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) on 6 April 2000,Official Report, columns 595–96W. I hope to make the promised announcement shortly.

  Drugs Misuse
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs will consider the Police Foundation's report. [120375]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs is an independent body and, therefore, I cannot speculate on its consideration of the Police Foundation report into the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. I can confirm however that copies of the report will be sent to members of the Council for information ahead of its next meeting on 25 May.

  Juvenile Secure Estate
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what methods of physical control and restraint will be used in the new juvenile secure estate; if different methods will be used according to the age of the child; and how the use of control and restraint will monitored. [120590]

  Mr. Boateng
  The methods of physical control and restraint currently in use in the juvenile secure estate vary according to the type of accommodation in which a young person is held.

  Local authority secure units use a variety of control and restraint methods in line with Department of Health guidance. Secure training centres use physical control in care methods which are approved by the Home Secretary. Prison Service Young Offender Institutions follow control and restraint methods which may be used to resolve incidents involving violent prisoners of all ages and of both sexes.

  The Youth Justice Board for England and Wales is responsible for monitoring regime standards and performance across all forms of juvenile secure accommodation. The Board intends to conduct a review of methods of physical control and restraint in juvenile secure accommodation with a view to identifying and promoting good practice.

  Prisoners (Home Life Background)
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people there were in prison in(a) 1970, (b) 1980 and (c) 1999, broken down by those who were children of (i) intact families and (ii) broken families. [120662]
  298W
  Mr. Boateng
  The information requested is not centrally recorded. However, a survey undertaken by the Office for National Statistics, "The National Prison Survey 1991" by Tricia Dodd and Paul Hunter (available through The Stationery Office), of persons held in prisons in England and Wales at the beginning of 1991 found that, of those inmates interviewed (around 3,800), 62 per cent. had lived with both parents for most of their childhood. Comparable information for other years is not available.

  Young Offenders (Home Life Background)
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many adolescent murderers in(a) 1980 and (b) 1999 grew up living apart from at least one parent; and what percentage of adolescent murderers this represented. [120669]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  There were, however, 84 persons aged between 10 and 20 convicted of homicide in England and Wales in 1980 (including 40 convicted of murder) and 70 in 1998, the latest year for which figures are available (including 31 convicted of murder).

  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of young people on supervision orders came from broken homes in(a) 1980 and (b) 1999. [120670]

  Mr. Straw
  The information requested is not held centrally. 18,300 supervision orders were made in 1980. 12,400 were made in 1998, the most recent year for which figures are readily available.

  Family Research Funding
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list, for each of the last three years, recipients of funds provided by his Department for research into the family, indicating the amount paid to each recipient. [120657]

  Mr. Straw
  In the two years prior to 1999, the Home Office provided no funding for research into the family. Since April 1999, my Department has provided funds for voluntary organisations under the Family Support Grant. In 1999–2000, over 30 voluntary organisations shared £1 million to develop support for parents and families.

  The purpose of these grants is to develop and disseminate good practice in family support. They are not, in the majority of cases, made to directly fund research. However, several of the projects which were funded last year contained an information gathering and analysis component:

  The National Family and Parenting Institute was awarded a total Government grant of £636,000 in 1999–2000. The Home Office provided £200,000 of the total funding, of which £38,800 was spent on research.

  The Family Policy Studies Centre received £43,213 to improve the delivery of their information products and services to existing users in the family support field, and

  299W
  to extend access to new users. It received a further £3,000 in March 2000 to contribute to the costs of an analysis of data from the Fourth National Study of Ethnic Minorities. The Race Equality Unit is a national organisation which helps to develop better social care services for black and minority ethnic communities. It received funding of £46,483 to develop a parenting programme and materials for ethnic minority parents, which included research.

  Gingerbread, a national organisation offering support to lone parents, received £10,000 to conduct research into the needs of lone fathers for practical, emotional and social support.

  The National Youth Agency (NYA) and Youthnet were both awarded funds to facilitate the 'Listen Up' dialogue between Government and young people, in order that young people's views inform future policy and service delivery for young people. The organisations spent £26,305 on the research element of this project.

  The marriage charity One Plus One received joint funding from the Home Office and the Lord Chancellor's Department to develop a marriage information booklet for couples planning to marry. This included £8,658.50 of Home Office funding spent on research.

  Secure Training Centres
  Sir Peter Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many children have been re-admitted to each of the secure training centres(a) for breach of the order and (b) under a new sentence. [120623]

  Mr. Boateng
  The secure training order under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 was implemented on 1 March 1998 and was replaced by the detention and training order under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 on 1 April 2000. The custodial part of the secure training order could be served in a secure training centre or a local authority secure unit if no secure training centre place was available.

  389 offenders were sentenced to a secure training order. 46 of them were returned to custody by the courts for the breach of supervision requirements following release and 31 were later sentenced to a secure training order for a further offence. A breakdown of this information for each secure training centre is not currently available and I will write to the right hon. Member when it has been prepared.

  Leave to Remain Indefinitely
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what is the recommended time scale for applications for leave to remain indefinitely to be processed by the Immigration and Nationality Directorate; [120738]

  (2) what the average processing time is for immigration applications for leave to remain indefinitely. [120737]

  Mrs. Roche
  There was a reorganisation of caseworking practices in the Immigration and Nationality Directorate at the beginning of 1999, and an analysis of decisions taken subsequently has not yet been undertaken. But over 70 per cent. of new applications are decided within a week under fast track procedures. The remainder 300W
  of new applications will normally be decided within six weeks. There is no recommended time limit for deciding these applications.

  Animal Experiments
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many animals were used in bio-medical research in(a) 1970, (b) 1980, (c) 1990 and (d) in the latest 12 months for which figures are available; what restrictions he applies on their use; and if he will make a statement. [120395]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Animals are used only in scientific procedures where fully justified, for example in medical research to prevent disease or reduce illnesses for people or other animals; also, where there are no valid alternatives and where the benefits outweigh the costs to the animals involved.

  The commentary in the "Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals Great Britain 1998" records the number of procedures or experiments conducted each year since 1946. These figures cover all scientific procedures involving the use of protected animals and do not separately identify those relating to biomedical research. The figures for the years requested are:

  Year

  Million

  1970

  5.7

  1980

  4.3

  1990

  3.2

  1998

  2.6

  Although there have been a few years when small rises were recorded, including 1998, there has been a steady decrease in the number of procedures performed since 1970. This reflects advances in science that have allowed the replacement of animals in scientific procedures, the reduction of the numbers of animals used per procedure and the refinement of those procedures. This Government's decisions to end some categories of animal use, such as cosmetic testing, have also made a contribution. More recently, there has also been a downward trend in the use of conventional animals, offset by an increase in the use of genetically modified animals. These trends also reflect recent scientific advances.

  Figures for 1999 are due to be published in July.

  Criminal Records Bureau
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will announce a scale of charges for checks on the criminal records of volunteers working with children. [120746]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  When the Criminal Records Bureau comes into operation, it will be expected to recover its costs through charges for the certificates that it will issue, on application, to individuals. Until the Bureau's operating costs have been determined, it will not be possible to fix the charges, but the cost has previously been estimated at between £5 to £10, depending on the type of certificate requested. There are no plans to have a separate scale of charges for volunteers working with children.

  Prison Industries
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list(a) the annual expenditure and (b) the annual income of prison industries in England and Wales in each of the last 10 years. [120686]

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

  Expenditure and income of prison industries 1990–91 to 1999–2000

  £ million

  Income

  Expenditure

  Own consumption

  Commercial

  1999–2000

  26.685

  42.495

  10.456

  1998–99

  28.889

  39.200

  8.172

  1997–98

  28.442

  36.358

  7.732

  1996–97

  27.080

  44.736

  6.718

  1995–96

  24.680

  45.103

  5.642

  1994–95

  25.609

  42.926

  4.587

  1993–94

  27.287

  39.350

  4.685

  Number of prisoners in work—inside and outside workshops

  Category

  Agricultural Business

  Gardens amenity

  Kitchen

  Non PES workshops

  Other occupations

  Other prison cleaning and orderly work

  PES workshops

  Prison maintenance work

  Wing cleaning work

  Albany

  B

  4

  36

  18

  16

  —

  21

  112

  4

  60

  Blundeston

  B

  —

  10

  12

  —

  9

  14

  70

  6

  51

  Dartmoor

  B

  4

  9

  25

  6

  —

  5

  165

  6

  85

  Forest Bank

  B

  —

  4

  28

  26

  2

  107

  0

  0

  24

  Garth

  B

  8

  7

  37

  —

  —

  24

  167

  7

  40

  Gartree

  B

  —

  13

  10

  56

  10

  —

  59

  8

  41

  Grendon

  B

  17

  18

  34

  —

  14

  54

  —

  7

  64

  Kingston

  B

  —

  10

  11

  —

  6

  9

  34

  3

  20

  Lowdham Grange

  B

  —

  8

  14

  178

  —

  7

  —

  14

  85

  Maidstone

  B

  —

  4

  13

  —

  4

  9

  181

  10

  94

  Parkhurst

  B

  —

  12

  6

  12

  4

  18

  109

  5

  53

  Swaleside

  B

  —

  3

  13

  —

  133

  20

  35

  8

  146

  Acklington

  C

  15

  13

  26

  13

  7

  29

  195

  7

  92

  Ashwell

  C

  —

  19

  18

  —

  21

  —

  175

  17

  67

  Blantyre House

  C

  —

  2

  12

  —

  —

  9

  5

  1

  8

  Buckley Hall

  C

  —

  16

  28

  —

  5

  14

  110

  7

  53

  Camp Hill

  C

  4

  0

  11

  —

  —

  29

  65

  19

  37

  Channings Wood

  C

  16

  14

  17

  9

  9

  25

  138

  12

  68

  Coldingley

  C

  —

  —

  —

  —

  162

  —

  —

  215

  —

  Downview

  C

  —

  26

  11

  11

  12

  26

  16

  13

  29

  Erlestoke

  C

  14

  12

  15

  21

  —

  20

  13

  8

  57

  Everthorpe

  C

  25

  7

  20

  —

  6

  8

  131

  9

  31

  Featherstone

  C

  7

  8

  9

  —

  —

  31

  250

  6

  44

  Haverigg

  C

  24

  17

  10

  —

  20

  12

  203

  —

  25

  Highpoint

  C

  —

  37

  31

  33

  15

  27

  78

  9

  117

  Kirklevington

  C

  —

  5

  9

  —

  10

  2

  —

  1

  10

  Lancaster

  C

  —

  0

  —

  —

  12

  12

  20

  0

  15

  Lindholme

  C

  50

  29

  16

  38

  35

  —

  24

  11

  60

  Littlehey

  C

  —

  14

  20

  —

  46

  14

  156

  7

  45

  Moorland

  C

  —

  15

  25

  —

  24

  —

  90

  6

  63

  Mount

  C

  —

  19

  43

  89

  7

  14

  —

  7

  83

  Ran by

  C

  18

  25

  —

  196

  —

  224

  5

  92

  Risley

  C

  —

  18

  20

  9

  18

  16

  110

  19

  129

  Shepton Mallet

  C

  —

  —

  8

  8

  5

  4

  18

  8

  17

  Stafford

  C

  —

  4

  12

  —

  —

  26

  210

  10

  56

  Stocken

  C

  5

  1

  23

  —

  5

  22

  106

  0

  52

  302W

  Expenditure and income of prison industries 1990–91 to 1999–2000

  £ million

  Expenditure

  Own consumption

  Income Commercial

  1992–93

  23.170

  37.246

  4.982

  1991–92

  20.205

  34.465

  5.289

  1990–91

  18.668

  34.032

  5.499

  Notes:

  1. All data cover both industries and farms.

  2. Expenditure data include variable costs and exclude fixed costs.

  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list(a) the number of prisoners employed in workshops, (b) the number of prisoners employed outside workshops and (c) the number of prisoners without work, in each adult male training prison in England and Wales, on the most recent date for which figures are available. [120692]

  Mr. Boateng
  Numbers of prisoners employed in workshops and outside workshops are given in the table. Records are not kept centrally of the number of prisoners without work.
  303W

  Number of prisoners in work—inside and outside workshops

  Category

  Agricultural Business

  Gardens amenity

  Kitchen

  Non PES workshops

  Other occupations

  Other prison cleaning and orderly work

  PES workshops

  Prison maintenance work

  Wing cleaning work

  Usk

  C

  17

  8

  20

  36

  16

  16

  —

  22

  223

  Verne

  C

  —

  24

  47

  —

  8

  —

  119

  37

  62

  Wayland

  C

  20

  12

  26

  —

  14

  21

  53

  2

  90

  Weal stun

  C

  28

  57

  45

  19

  17

  —

  169

  13

  32

  Weare

  C

  —

  0

  19

  —

  7

  31

  —

  20

  62

  Wellingborough

  C

  2

  5

  20

  —

  11

  27

  44

  0

  45

  Whatton

  C

  12

  12

  18

  24

  4

  14

  19

  10

  17

  Wymott

  C

  16

  26

  3

  21

  21

  —

  305

  8

  121

  Ford

  D

  57

  8

  21

  —

  33

  31

  55

  13

  14

  Hewell Grange

  D

  31

  11

  15

  —

  39

  74

  —

  9

  11

  Hollesley Bay

  D

  40

  2

  9

  —

  41

  11

  —

  13

  26

  Kirkham

  D

  26

  131

  31

  9

  43

  —

  180

  17

  19

  Latchmere House

  D

  —

  3

  6

  —

  9

  17

  16

  3

  —

  Leyhill

  D

  84

  10

  11

  —

  15

  35

  83

  11

  15

  Morton Hall

  D

  18

  9

  18

  19

  4

  14

  —

  7

  14

  North Sea Camp

  D

  51

  —

  14

  —

  13

  22

  —

  19

  18

  Standford Hill

  D

  65

  16

  9

  —

  6

  46

  23

  13

  29

  Sudbury

  D

  36

  23

  26

  —

  87

  14

  86

  30

  17

  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total value of contracts between Prison Service industries and external customers in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available. [120691]

  Mr. Boateng
  The majority of Prison Service sales contracts are with the Ministry of Defence and other Government Departments and are formulated on a framework basis. As such, the value of the contract may not have a direct relationship to actual sales. The figures given in the table are for actual sales and, therefore, provide a more accurate representation of commercial work undertaken. The figures include sales from agribusiness as well as industries.

  Volume of sales by Prison Service industries and agribusiness to external customers

  £ million

  1999–2000

  10.456

  1998–99

  8.172

  1997–98

  7.732

  1996–97

  6.718

  1995–96

  5.642

  1994–95

  4.587

  1993–94

  4.685

  1992–93

  4.982

  1991–92

  5.289

  1990–91

  5.499

  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the annual turnover of prison industries and farms in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available. [120687]

  Mr. Boateng
  The information requested is given in the table. For the years 1990–91 to 1995–96, the value of amenity costings have been excluded to bring the data 304W
  in line with successive years, when these costings were discontinued following the agribusiness review undertaken by the Prison Service in January 1997.

  Annual turnover of prison industries and farms 1990–91 to 1999–2000

  £ million

  Turnover

  1999–2000

  52.951

  1998–99

  47.372

  1997–98

  44.090

  1996–97

  51.454

  1995–96

  50.745

  1994–95

  47.513

  1993–94

  44.035

  1992–93

  42.228

  1991–92

  39.754

  1990–91

  39.531

  Prison Workshops
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on each of the pilot prisons involved in the first tranche of the Workshop Expansion Scheme, with special reference to(a) the number of work places available, (b) hours of work, (c) prisoner wages and (d) the annual turnover of the workshops. [120684]

  Mr. Boateng
  The information on the number of work places available, hours of work and annual turnover of workshops is given in the table.

  The data apply to industries only and excludes agribusiness. It has been extracted from locally-supplied workshop control and hours reports.
  305W
  Information on prisoner wages is unavailable, as this is not recorded centrally.

  Workshop expansion scheme

  Establishments

  Work places

  Hours

  Annual turnover (£000)

  1997–1998

  Albany1

  112

  25

  704

  Ashwell2

  202

  25

  1,300

  Camp Hill

  92

  25

  471

  Channings Wood3

  164

  25

  681

  Featherstone4

  187

  25

  2,700

  Kirkham5

  170

  25

  1,940

  Littlehey

  170

  25

  554

  Wymott

  180

  25

  1,700

  Total

  1,277

  25

  10,050

  1998–1999

  Albany1

  153

  23.3

  881

  Ashwell2

  280

  25

  855

  Camp Hill

  109

  20

  667

  Channings Wood3

  163

  23.25

  979

  Featherstone4

  265

  27

  3,400

  Kirkham5

  251

  29

  1,920

  Littlehey

  250

  27.3

  192

  Wymott

  268

  27.3

  2,300

  Total

  1,739

  25.27

  11,194

  1999–2000

  Albany1

  132

  20.27

  487

  Ashwell2

  332

  26.55

  752

  Camp Hill

  107

  21.29

  1,500

  Channings Wood3

  155

  22.37

  863

  Featherstone4

  254

  26.17

  2300

  Kirkham5

  220

  29.15

  1,300

  Littlehey

  222

  14.03

  239

  Wymott

  374

  23.14

  2,000

  Total

  1,796

  22.87125

  9,441

  1 Establishment now has five fewer instructors than at the start of the project. (Additional drug treatment programmes)

  2 Product changes with reduced sales values

  3 Drug treatment programmes affected the work place numbers

  4 Sales values dramatically reduce due to product change

  5 Establishment roll reduced by 250 places

  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average length of the working week for those prisoners employed in workshops in each adult male training prison in England and Wales in the last year for which figures are available; and what was the average wage in each establishment. [120690]

  Mr. Boateng
  Data on the average length of the working week are given in the table. Records are not kept centrally on the average wage in each establishment.

  Average length of the working week

  Prison name

  Average hours

  Albany

  19

  Blundeston

  20

  Dartmoor

  21

  Garth

  19

  Gartree

  22

  Kingston

  25

  Maidstone

  25

  Parkhurst

  25

  306W

  Average length of the working week

  Prison name

  Average hours

  Swaleside

  23

  Acklington

  26

  Ashwell

  26

  Blantyre House

  35

  Buckley Hall

  36

  Camp Hill

  22

  Channings Wood

  18

  Coldingley

  25

  Downview

  16

  Erlestoke

  19

  Everthorpe

  26

  Featherstone

  19

  Haverigg

  26

  Highpoint

  13

  Lancaster

  18

  Lindholme

  17

  Littlehey

  21

  Moorland

  20

  Mount

  24

  Ranby

  22

  Risley

  27

  Shepton Mallet

  27

  Stafford

  21

  Stocken

  29

  Verne

  30

  Wealstun

  20

  Wellingborough

  20

  Whatton

  23

  Wymott

  31

  Ford

  27

  Kirkham

  30

  Latchmere House

  61

  Leyhill

  21

  Standford Hill

  23

  Sudbury

  25

  Note:

  Figures not available for privately operated prisons

  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners were employed on average in prison workshops in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available. [120685]

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

  Average numbers of prisoners employed in prison workshops 1990–91 to 1999–2000

  Number

  1999–2000

  8,571

  1998–99

  9,699

  1997–98

  7,615

  1996–97

  7,601

  1995–96

  8,844

  1994–95

  8,851

  1993–94

  8,680

  1992–93

  8,552

  1991–92

  9,308

  1990–91

  7.286

  Prisoners' Earnings Act 1996
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to bring the Prisoners' Earnings Act 1996 into force; and if he will make a statement. [120688]
  307W
  Mr. Boateng
  I am determined that as many prisoners as possible should make a contribution to their keep. Officials will be reporting shortly on the outcome of work they have been doing on the extent to which the Prisoners' Earnings Act 1996 can contribute to this objective and I will then consider the options.

  Prisons (Resource Employment Places)
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the number of resource employment places in prisons in England and Wales in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available, broken down by type of activity. [120693]

  Mr. Boateng
  Prior to 1994 accounts were submitted centrally covering industries' and farms' output but following devolution of funding to establishment level this has not been a requirement. Therefore, from 1995–96 the figures have been extracted from data supplied as part of the Prison Service accounts. The available information is given in the table.

  Resource employment places in prisons in England and Wales 1990–91 to 1999–2000

  Year

  Industries

  1999–20001

  210,989

  1998–991

  211,966

  1997–981

  229,173

  1996–971

  29,173

  1995–96

  Tailoring/Shirts

  2,184

  Textiles

  2,429

  Others

  210

  Footwear/Leather

  221

  Printing

  243

  Weaving

  352

  Engineering

  810

  Woodwork

  795

  Laundry

  1,060

  Contract Services

  1,732

  Total

  10,036

  1994–95

  Tailoring/Shirts

  2,176

  Textiles

  2,381

  Others

  210

  Footwear/Leather

  221

  Printing

  243

  Weaving

  352

  Engineering

  810

  Woodwork

  795

  Laundry

  1,203

  Contract Services

  1,732

  Total

  10,123

  1993–94

  Tailoring/Shirts

  2,330

  Textiles

  2,256

  Others

  190

  Footwear/Leather

  261

  Printing

  286

  Weaving

  313

  Engineering

  780

  Woodwork

  763

  Laundry

  1,053

  Contract Services

  1,792

  Total

  10,024

  308W

  Resource employment places in prisons in England and Wales 1990–91 to 1999–2000

  Year

  Industries

  1992–93

  Tailoring/Shirts

  2,257

  Textiles

  2,426

  Others

  210

  Footwear/Leather

  266

  Printing

  286

  Weaving

  334

  Engineering

  780

  Woodwork

  758

  Laundry

  1,082

  Contract Services

  1,779

  Total

  10,178

  1991–92

  Tailoring/Shirts

  2,296

  Textiles

  2,798

  Others

  196

  Footwear/Leather

  261

  Printing

  320

  Weaving

  352

  Engineering

  740

  Woodwork

  764

  Laundry

  1,104

  Contract Services

  2,132

  Total

  10,963

  1990–91

  Tailoring/Shirts

  2,401

  Textiles

  2,708

  Others

  226

  Footwear/Leather

  261

  Printing

  320

  Weaving

  439

  Engineering

  740

  Woodwork

  879

  Laundry

  1,017

  Contract Services

  2,107

  Total

  11,098

  1 Breakdown by activity not available

  2 Centrally available figures may not be wholly accurate

  Resource employment places in prisons in England and Wales 1990–91 to 1999–2000

  Totals1

  Farms and gardens

  1999–2000

  2 2,784

  1998–99

  2 2,949

  1997–98

  2 3,508

  1996–97

  2 3,508

  1995–96

  3,474

  1994–95

  3,474

  1993–94

  3,474

  1992–93

  3,474

  1991–92

  3.657

  1990–91

  3.551

  1 Breakdown by activity not available

  2 Centrally available figures may not be wholly accurate

  Prisons (NVQs)
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many NVQs were completed in Prison Service establishments in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [120683]
  309W
  Mr. Boateng
  The figures given are for complete National Vocational Qualifications, not units.

  National Vocational Qualifications completed in prison establishments 1997–98 to 1999–2000

  Number

  1999–2000

  4,109

  1998–99

  5,462

  1997–98

  4,680

  1996–97

  1—

  1995–96

  1—

  1 No records available

  Magistrates Courts
  Mr. Hurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will estimate the costs to each police authority in England and Wales consequent upon the closure of magistrates courts within their area from 1 January 1995 to 31 December 1999. [R] [121029]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The information on which such establishments could be based is not held locally.

  Internet
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate has been made of the costs of intercepting internet traffic by the Government's new computer centre, GTAC; and how these costs will be distributed between internet service providers and the Government. [121022]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Government have allocated £25 million to establish the Government Technical Assistance Centre. I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) on 6 April 2000,Official Report, column 596W.

  Separately, Clause 12 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill establishes a power to require communication service providers to maintain a reasonable intercept capability. The particular nature of the requirements will be spelt out in detail in subordinate legislation subject to affirmative resolution. The requirements are likely to change as technology develops.

  The Government are currently considering a detailed independent report on how interception might be achieved on the internet and how much it might cost. Existing policy on the allocation of cost is set out in that report which can be found at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/oicd/ripbill.htm.

  Richard Lewis (Pardon)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will grant a pardon to Richard Lewis, also known as Dic Penderyn; and what representations he has received on this issue. [121127]

  Mr. Straw
  I have no plans to grant a posthumous Free Pardon for Richard Lewis. I have not recently received any representations in support of a pardon, but I would, of course, be prepared to look at this case should such representations be received.

  Illegal Entrants
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many clandestine illegal entrants have been discovered in vehicles arriving at United Kingdom ports in each month for the last 12 months for which figures are available. [121289]

  Mrs. Roche
  Information is recorded centrally on the numbers of persons issued with notice of illegal entry as clandestine entrants. Figures for April 1999 to March 2000 are given in the table. This information is collated by the date of issue of notice of illegal entry and does not contain details of the date of entry to the United Kingdom. The central record does not differentiate between those persons detected in vehicles at ports of entry and those persons whose clandestine entry came to light at a later stage.

  Persons issued with notice of illegal entry as clandestine entrants, by month, April 1999 to March 20001

  Number of persons

  1999

  April

  750

  May

  1,110

  June

  960

  July

  1,330

  August

  2,055

  September

  2,150

  October

  2,240

  November

  1,850

  December

  1,885

  2000

  January

  2,085

  February

  2,225

  March

  2,330

  1 All data are provisional and rounded to 5

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of the stowaways he witnessed being discovered at Dover on Wednesday 26 April(a) have claimed asylum and (b) remain in the UK. [121286]

  Mr. Straw
  Of the nine individuals whose discovery I witnessed on 26 April, six are known to have claimed asylum and are still in the country. Information concerning the three others is not yet available to me but I shall write to the hon. Member as soon as it is.

  Violent Crime
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the incidence of crimes of violence in(a) Gwent, (b) other Welsh Police Authority areas and (c) English Police Authority areas. [120935]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The latest recorded crime figures published for the period October 1998 to September 1999 show the total of all violent crime, which includes violence against the person, robbery and sexual offences, to be:

  Area

  Offences per 100,000 population

  (a) Gwent

  2,151

  (b) All Other police areas in Wales

  962

  (c) Police areas in England

  1,159

  311W
  Under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, local authorities and the police working in partnership are required to develop local strategies for reducing crime and disorder. For the partnerships in Gwent, the key priorities and targets in their local strategies include tackling: drugs and alcohol misuse; anti-social behaviour, including neighbourhood disorder; youth disaffection and offending by young people; and violent and hate crime.

  Sick Prisoners
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will recommend that remission of sentences granted to sick prisoners because of their illnesses be reviewed when the prisoner has recovered. [120928]

  Mr. Boateng
  Section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 allows for release from prison on compassionate grounds in exceptional circumstances. Remission of sentence was abolished with the introduction of the 1991 Act.

  Decisions to release prisoners under section 36 of the 1991 Act are rare. Release is granted only where strict criteria are met and where it is considered that release will not place the safety of the public at risk.

  Where a prisoner's exceptional circumstances warrant release on compassionate grounds, he or she must comply with the conditions contained in their release licence. If he or she fails to comply with those conditions, or if his or her behaviour after release indicates that there is reason to revise the original risk assessment, the licence can be revoked and the individual returned to custody. Current policy is that improvement in an individual's medical circumstances are not, on their own, sufficient reason to revoke a licence. There are no plans to change this policy.

  Home Detention Curfew
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer to the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), of 2 May 2000,Official Report, column 75W, on the home detention curfew scheme, what offences were committed by the prisoners released before the requisite period; and what was the (a) sentence received, (b) requisite period and (c) sentence served in each case. [121074]

  Mr. Boateng
  My reply to the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), of 2 May 2000,Official Report, columns 74–75W, indicated that 12 prisoners had been released on the Home Detention Curfew scheme before the end of the requisite period. Further inquiries have revealed that in one case the prisoner was in fact released on the correct date. The available information, therefore, shows that since the Home Detention Curfew scheme commenced in January 1999, a total of 11 prisoners have been released early.

  The original offences committed by the prisoners released on Home Detention Curfew before the requisite period, the sentence received, the requisite period and the sentence served in 10 of the 11 cases, are shown in the table. The table also shows additional days awarded (ADAs) as a result of a prisoner breaching the prison
  312W
  disciplinary code. As explained in my reply of 2 May, in a number of cases the early releases were due to the prison's failure to take into account the additional days awarded. A further prisoner, sentenced to two years and six months in respect of an offence of wounding (inflicting grievous bodily harm), was released on Home Detention Curfew before the end of the requisite period of 398 days due to an error in the original sentence calculation. The prisoner was returned to custody after 15 days. He was subsequently released at his automatic conditional release date, his second Home Detention Curfew application having been refused. He served a total of 442 days.

  Original offence

  Sentence received

  Requisite period

  Sentence served

  Robbery (assault with intent)

  3 years 6 months (1,277 days)

  580 days + 10

  588 days

  Importation of drugs

  2 years 6 months (912 days)

  397 days + 10 ADAs

  397 days

  Escaping unlawful custody

  2 years (731 days)

  307 days + 5 ADAs

  307 days

  Possession of drugs with intent

  2 years

  307 days

  305 days

  Possession of drugs with intent

  2 years intent

  307 days + 42 ADAs

  321 days

  Robbery, assault with intent

  1 year 9 months (639 days)

  261 days

  259 days

  Theft

  1 year 6 months (547 days)

  215 days + 14 ADAs

  223 days

  Theft

  1 year (366 days)

  124 days + 1 ADA

  121 days

  Unlawful sexual intercourse

  6 months (184 days)

  46 days

  35 days

  Motoring offences

  4 months (120 days)

  30 days + 7 ADAs

  33 days

  European Football Championship Matches
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to ensure the safety of British football fans travelling to European Football Championship matches. [119875]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Government are doing everything possible to help the host countries provide a safe and secure environment for all football fans attending the European Championships in Holland and Belgium in June. We established a Euro 2000 Co-ordinating Group in October to ensure that Government, police and other United Kingdom preparations are comprehensive and complementary. There has been considerable liaison and consultation with the Dutch and Belgian authorities who are responsible for the management and security of supporters attending the tournament. This high level of co-operation will continue up to and throughout the tournament.

  Police Helicopters (South Wales)
  Ms Julie Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many criminals were caught as
  313W
  a direct result of the use of police helicopters by the South Wales Police in (a) 1996–97, (b) 1997–98, (c) 1998–99 and (d) 1999–2000; and how much stolen property was recovered as a direct result of the use of helicopters; [120835]

  (2) how much it cost to operate the police helicopter tracker car recovery system used by the South Wales Police in the financial years (a) 1996–97, (b) 1997–98, (c) 1998–99 and (d) 1999–2000 broken down by the cost of (i) hire of helicopters, (ii) cost of staff and (iii) other costs. [120864]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  In 1999–2000, the helicopter used jointly by South Wales Police and Gwent Constabulary was responsible for over 200 arrests and the recovery of £200,000 worth of stolen property. Information relating to previous years and to the use of the tracker recovery system is not immediately available and I will write to my hon. Friend once the details have been collected.

  Disorder (Central London)
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what statues and buildings were vandalised during the disorder in central London on 1 May; what lasting damage was done; how many people have been(a) arrested for and (b) charged with damaging the statues and buildings; and if he will make a statement. [121044]

  Mr. Straw
  The statues in Parliament Square, for which the Royal Parks Agency have responsibility, were defaced to varying degrees. Remedial work on these is currently being undertaken by specialist contractors and much of the superficial graffiti have already been removed. Seven statues and monuments, including the Cenotaph, for which English Heritage has responsibility, were also vandalised. English Heritage advise me that no lasting damage was done to any of their monuments. The graffiti on the Cenotaph were removed in time for the wreath laying ceremony at lunchtime last Thursday by the Danish Resistance Movement.

  The Metropolitan police advise me that damage was also caused to 19 buildings in and around the vicinity of Whitehall, Trafalgar Square and the Strand. Serious damage was caused to McDonald's in Whitehall. I understand that a total of 13 people have been arrested so far for criminal damage, of whom four have been charged.

  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans were drawn up in respect of the protection of(a) the statue of Sir Winston Churchill in Parliament Square and (b) the Cenotaph prior to the disorder of 1 May; for what reasons, and on whose authority, it was decided not to protect them; how many persons have been (i) arrested and (ii) charged with vandalising the statue and the Cenotaph; what steps the police are taking to arrest other such persons; and if he will make a statement. [121075]

  Mr. Straw
  I understand that both the Royal Parks Agency who have responsibility for the statues in Parliament Square and English Heritage who have responsibility for seven other statues and monuments, including the Cenotaph, damaged during the May Day disturbances, considered whether the statues and monuments should have been boarded up before the 314W
  demonstration but decided not to do so. I understand that one factor which was taken into account by the Agency and English Heritage was a concern to avoid the hoarding being used as weapons in the event of violence.

  Figures for arrests and charges for criminal damage to individual statues and monuments is not available. The Metropolitan police advise me that 13 people have been arrested for criminal damage and that four of these have so far been charged. Police investigations into the disturbances are continuing.

CABINET OFFICE

  Duchy Benevolent Fund
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how much has been paid from the Duchy Benevolent Fund to organisations and individuals in each year since 1995. [119850]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  Grants made by the Duchy of Lancaster Benevolent Fund for the past five years are as follows:

  £

  1995–96

  251,637

  1996–97

  316,425

  1997–98

  277,014

  1998–99

  290,957

  1999–2000

  1
  310,800

  1 Unaudited

  Lists of grants made from the Fund for the last five years would run to several hundred items.

  Press Officers
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many press officers are employed in the Cabinet Office; and how many were employed in(a) 1996–97, (b) 1997–98 and (c) 1998–99. [119977]

  Mr. Stringer
  The average number of press officers in post in the Cabinet Office Press Office in 1996–97 was seven; 1997–98 was 10.2; 1998–99 was 12.3 and in 1999–2000 was 16.7.

  In addition, a dedicated press office was set up in March 1999, to co-ordinate Government media activity on the Year 2000 Millennium Bug problem. The Unit was set up by the President of the Council. The total number of full-time press officers employed over the year was five.

  Civil Service Code
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office when she proposes to give statutory backing to the Civil Service Code. [120025]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  The Government have given a commitment, in principle, to give statutory backing to the Civil Service Code. The Government have a heavy forward legislative programme and will take this legislation forward as and when a suitable opportunity arises.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what was the(a) number and (b) cost of foreign visits undertaken by special advisers within her Department since May 1997. [119932]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  For the financial years 1997–98 and 1998–99, I refer the hon. Member to the answer to the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) on 17 May 1999,Official Report, column 242W. For 1999–2000, Special Advisers accompanied me or my predecessor overseas on five occasions at a cost of £2,022. This includes one visit at no cost to public funds. In addition, the UK Anti-Drugs Co-ordinator and his deputy travelled overseas on six occasions at a cost of £3,935. This includes two visits at no cost to public funds.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  FA Cup Final
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans Ministers in his Department have to attend the Football Association cup final. [119885]

  Kate Hoey
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have both received invitations to attend the FA Cup Final. My right hon. Friend is planning to go to the match, but I shall be at another sporting engagement.

  World Cup Final
  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on the progress made in implementing the Broadcasting Act 1996 with reference to television coverage of the 2002 and 2006 football world cup finals tournaments. [119886]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The World Cup finals tournament is a listed event under Part IV of the Broadcasting Act 1996. Under the terms of that Act and of the Independent Television's Code on Listed Events, live television coverage of the World Cup finals tournament must be offered on fair and reasonable terms to BBC 1, BBC 2, Channel 3 (ITV) or Channel 4.

  Wembley Stadium
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what recent discussions he has held with local authorities regarding the proposed new Wembley stadium. [119888]

  Kate Hoey
  Neither I nor my right hon. Friend can or should intervene in any of the planning discussions which have recently been taking place between WNSL and Brent. The Wembley Task Force (including Nigel Mobbs, Brent etc. and DCMS officials) has been very active in promoting the wider regeneration of the area, and we are keeping in close touch with their work.

  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if(a) he and (b) members of the Wembley Maintenance Committee have discussed with Brent Council a section 106 agreement for transport
  316W
  infrastructure investment in connection with the granting of planning consent for the redevelopment of Wembley Stadium; and if he will make a statement [119121]

  Kate Hoey
  Planning issues including section 106 agreements are solely a matter for the London Borough of Brent. Therefore, neither Ministers nor officials from the Department have discussed section 106 agreements for transport infrastructure with the London Borough of Brent. Similarly, this is not an issue which the Wembley Monitoring Committee has discussed with the London Seaside Towns Borough of Brent though individual members of the Committee, such as Wembley National Stadium Ltd., have had such discussions in the course of their normal business. The Wembley Task Force has discussed a range of transport and other infrastructure issues relating to the wider Wembley regeneration area but this has not included negotiation of section 106 agreements which are a matter for the London Borough of Brent and relevant developers.

  Seaside Towns
  Shona McIsaac
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment he has made of the allocation of national lottery funds to seaside towns. [119889]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The National Lottery funds numerous projects which bring widespread benefits to seaside towns. Research jointly commissioned by my Department and the Lottery distributors into Lottery funding in the coalfields and other areas does however suggest that resort and retirement towns have made relatively fewer applications and have received less per capita than the national average. A second phase of the research, to be published shortly, will seek to identify the reasons for the low level of Lottery funding in certain areas and recommend ways of redressing the balance. I have directed distributors to ensure that there is the widest possible access in all parts of the country to Lottery funding and that funding contributes to reducing social and economic deprivation.

  Creative Industries
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps he is taking to support new businesses in the creative industries sector. [119890]

  Janet Anderson
  Through the work of the Creative Industries Task Force, we are tackling a number of generic issues of importance to creative businesses, including the problem of accessing seed and start up capital. We are also addressing these issues at a sectoral level, for example through the work of the Music Industry Forum and the Film Finance Forum. My Department works closely with the Department of Trade and Industry and HM Treasury in taking this work forward.

  Professional Football
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when he last met representatives of the Football Association and the Football League to discuss the state of professional football in England. [119892]
  317W
  Kate Hoey
  With my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, I met the Chief Executive of the Football Association and the chairman of the Football League on 16 March to discuss a range of football issues. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State subsequently met the Chief Executive of the Football Association on 6 April.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when he next plans to review the guidelines for the allocation of money to good causes by the national lottery. [119893]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The guidelines for applicants for National Lottery funds are a matter for the National Lottery distributing bodies within the framework of the directions I have given them. My Department is working with the Lottery distributing bodies to ensure that their application systems are as user-friendly as possible.

  Space for Sport and Arts Scheme
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when the first grants will be made to primary schools under the Space for Sport and Arts scheme. [119894]

  Kate Hoey
  My officials are now in the process of working up further details about the scheme with the Department for Education and Employment and Lottery distributors and we hope to be in a position to invite applications in the autumn.

  Sports (Eastern Region)
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what support he plans to give for sports development in the Eastern region. [119895]

  Kate Hoey
  A great deal of support is already being given to sports development in the Eastern Region through the Lottery Sports Fund and other programmes operated or funded by Sport England.

  Film Industry
  Ms Ward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what benefits the new Film Council will bring to the British film industry. [119896]

  Janet Anderson
  The Film Council brings together in one body the previous mechanisms for Government film support. It has the remit and resources to deliver, for the first time, a comprehensive strategy for the development of a sustainable film industry.

  Mr. White
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment he has made of the impact of his recent measures to support the film industry. [119891]

  Janet Anderson
  Over the past three years, we have put in place a more effective framework of support for film and have forged a much closer working relationship with the film industry. The Film Policy Review led to a range of positive developments, including the creation of the Skills Investment Fund and the British Film Office in Los Angeles, and culminated in the launch of the Film 318W
  Council, which last week announced the first phase of a comprehensive strategy for the development of the film industry.

  Football Clubs
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps he is taking to encourage football clubs to give supporters a greater say in the running of their clubs. [119897]

  Kate Hoey
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced the Supporters Trusts initiative last October. The resulting body—Supporters Direct—has been operational in shadow form since 27 January. Supporters Direct is designed to offer advice and funding to groups of supporters wishing to invest responsibly in Premiership and Football League clubs.

  Free Television Licences
  Mr. Hopkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many families in Luton, North will benefit from the introduction of free television licences for households with a member aged 75 or over. [119898]

  Janet Anderson
  I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to my right hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones), of 2 March 2000,Official Report, column 350W.

  Digital TV (Wales)
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on digital television broadcasting in Wales. [119899]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The Government will ensure that all viewers in Wales who presently receive analogue television will be able to receive the main free-to-air channels digitally, before the analogue transmissions are fully switched to digital. Digital television has extended choice to Welsh viewers by enabling S4C and Channel 4 to be broadcast as separate digital services in Wales.

  School Sports
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what his plans are for increasing the number of sports taught at or by schools. [119900]

  Kate Hoey
  The National Curriculum requires schools to offer the opportunity to participate in games, athletics, dance, gymnastics, outdoor and adventure activity and swimming. Within these broad areas it is for schools to determine which sports to pursue. The Government would encourage schools to offer as broad a range of sporting activity as possible, but recognise that this can sometimes be difficult. That is why we are working with Sport England and the Youth Sports Trust on a scheme to establish up to 600 schools sport co-ordinators, who will work in families of schools to encourage better links and sharing of facilities. This will mean that pupils will benefit from a wider range of activities than if their school were operating in isolation.

  Analogue Television
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what his latest estimate is of the date for the switch-over from the analogue TV signal. [119901]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  We have estimated 2006–10 for switch-over.

  Scientists
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps his Department is taking to encourage young scientists to apply to NESTA for financial support. [119887]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  NESTA exists to support creative and talented individuals of all ages. Anyone with exciting and new ideas for products and industrial processes can apply for support under NESTA's Invention and Innovation programme, which came on line last December and will shortly be making its first awards. Exceptionally talented individuals, including promising young scientists identified by NESTA appointed nominators, may be supported under NESTA's Fellowship programme. Finally NESTA's Education Programme is intended to support schemes aimed at popularising science, technology and the arts, particularly among the young.

HEALTH

  Cancer Services
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment his Department has made of the effectiveness of(a) Irinotecan and (b) Oxaliplatin; and if he will make a statement; [118961]

  (2) what steps he has taken to mark National Bowel Cancer Awareness Week; [118962]

  (3) if he will list those health authorities which fund all eligible bowel cancer patients with (a) Irinotecan and (b) Oxaliplatin in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [118964]

  Yvette Cooper
  On the 2 May, the Minister of State for Health announced that the National Institute of Clinical Excellence will be asked to consider a range of cancer drugs for appraisal of their clinical and cost effectiveness. These will include irinotecan, oxaliplatin and raltitrexed for colorectal cancer.

  Detailed spending information on cancer services, including drugs, is not currently held centrally.

  I attended the launch of the National Bowel Cancer Week on 10 April. In addition, we have made available £10 million each year since 1998 to improve access to diagnosis and treatment of colorectal cancer. From July 2000, all patients suspected of having colorectal cancer will be guaranteed an outpatient appointment within 14 days of their general practitioner marking an urgent referral.

  Female Genital Mutilation
  Ms McCafferty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he has taken to promote health education among groups affected by the practice of female genital mutilation. [119190]

  Yvette Cooper
  Education is central to eradicating the brutal practice of female genital mutilation (FGM). We fund a range of educational projects in Britain. This year we have awarded the London Black Women's Health Action Project a section 64 project grant of £25,000 for 1999–2000 for their training and resource project. This project aims to educate and raise awareness of FGM among healthcare providers, facilitate training of trainers programmes and seminars, and to produce and disseminate educational materials.

  The Department also provides financial support to FORWARD, the leading voluntary organisation on this issue, through the section 64 grants scheme. This support includes core grant funding of £25,000 for 1999–2000 to 2001–02, to help meet the organisation's running costs. Over the last few years, the Department has provided funds totalling nearly 280,000 for projects developed by FORWARD in the United Kingdom. Additionally, the Department for International Development has committed over £200,000 for two projects in which FORWARD are involved in Nigeria and The Gambia.

  The sexual health strategy currently being developed will be looking at health promotion needs including those of particular cultural groups.

  Ms McCafferty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what mechanisms are in place to ensure that the Prohibition of Female Circumcision Act 1985 is enforced. [119188]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Prohibition of Female Circumcision Act 1985 makes it an offence to carry out the procedures known as female circumcision. It also makes it an offence for anyone to aid, abet, counsel or procure the carrying out of these procedures by any other person on her own body.

  There have been no prosecutions under the Act since it came into force. The lack of prosecutions for this offence is only because of the small number of complaints made to the police and the difficulty of obtaining evidence where a complaint is made. Encouraging the education of professionals and practising communities is a more effective tool for eradicating female genital mutilation.

  Ms McCafferty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures he has taken to prevent young girls being taken out of the country for the purpose of female genital mutilation. [119189]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Prohibition of Female Circumcision Act 1985 makes the procedure of female genital mutilation (FGM) illegal. As well as this Act, legal protection for girls is also provided by the Children Act 1989. If a local authority has reason to believe that a child is likely to suffer significant harm, it is obliged to make such inquiries as it considers necessary to enable it to decide whether it should take any action to safeguard or promote the child's welfare. Under the Act, a Prohibited Steps Order can be made to prevent parents carrying out
  321W
  a particular act without the consent of the Court (eg removing the child from the United Kingdom so that mutilation can be carried out abroad).

  Further protection is offered under the Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Act 1998. This Act makes it an offence for a person to conspire to commit an offence outside the United Kingdom, provided the substantive offence constitutes an offence both under the law in the UK and under the law in the country in which the act is committed. Therefore if parents take their daughters abroad to have them mutilated this would be an offence if FGM is also an offence in the country to which they are travelling.

  Genetic Data
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what Code of Practice covers his Department's data matching activities; and if he will place a copy in the Library. [119525]

  Ms Stuart
  The Department does not have a Code of Practice governing data matching activities. However, where patients may be identified from the data held, the Department adheres to the good practice principles developed by the Caldicott Committee. A copy of the Caldicott Report, published in December 1997, is in the Library.

  Tuberculosis
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to authorise a renewal of the programme of tuberculosis vaccinations within secondary schools. [120402]

  Yvette Cooper
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) on 10 February 2000,Official Report, column 261W.

  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the recent trend in the incidence of tuberculosis in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [120371]

  Yvette Cooper
  The United Kingdom has an excellent record of tuberculosis (TB) control and we are determined this should remain the case.

  The incidence of TB is monitored by the Public Health Laboratory Service (PHLS). Official notifications of TB gradually fell to an all time low of 5,086 in England and Wales in 1987 from about 50,000 cases a year in the 1950s and 9,000 cases at the beginning of the 1980s. Since the early 1990s, there have been overall small year on year increases in total notified cases which are continuing. Provisional notifications for 1998 were just over 6,000. While some of this increase may be due to better ascertainment of cases, it has occurred against the backdrop of a worldwide resurgence of this disease that will, inevitably, continue to have some impact on TB in the UK through travel and immigration.

  The results of the latest in a series of five-yearly detailed surveys of TB in England and Wales undertaken by the PHLS on behalf of the Department are reported in the Communicable Disease Report Vol. 9, No. 51 (17 December 1999), copies of which are available in the Library.
  322W
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases of(a) human tuberculosis (mycobacterium tuberculosis), and (b) bovine tuberculosis (mycobacterium bovis), were confirmed in humans in (i) 1997, (ii) 1998 and (iii) 1999; and if he will make a statement. [120771]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 4 May 2000]: A total of 5,859 cases of tuberculosis were notified in England and Wales in 1997, 6,087 in 1998 and 6,144 in 1999. 3,232 cases were confirmed by culture in 1997 and 3,506 in 1998. Final totals for culture confirmed cases for 1999 are not yet available.

  Of the culture confirmed cases, 32 were due to Mycobacterium bovis in 1997, and 29 in 1998. To date, 16 cases due to Mycobacterium bovis have been reported for 1999.

  There is no evidence at present that the increase in bovine tuberculosis in cattle has led to an increase in bovine tuberculosis in the local human population.

  The number of isolates of M. bovis from human cases of bovine tuberculosis in England and Wales has varied from 22 to 37 per year between 1993 and 1998 with no trend to increase or decrease. The numbers of human cases of M. bovis arising in those regions of England and Wales with the greatest increase in bovine tuberculosis in cattle (South West, Wales and West Midlands) have remained low and have also varied from year to year with no increasing or decreasing trend.

  In response to the Krebs Committee report on tuberculosis in cattle and badgers, the Department undertook to continue to monitor the public health impact of M. bovis infection carefully. Measures have been taken to enhance surveillance, particularly in those areas most affected by infection in cattle, and to look at geographical and occupational variations in incidence. Department of Health and Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food officials hold regular meetings to keep matters under review with special regard to the potential for M. bovis to infect humans through the United Kingdom food chain and other zoonotic routes.
  (Data from the Public Health Laboratory Service. Source: NOIDS database and Mycobnet database as at 3 May 2000 (database kept live)).

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if his Department routinely records the occupation of people identified as being infected with Bovine TB; and if he will make a statement. [120770]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 4 May 2000]: Information on the occupation of individuals notified with tuberculosis in England and Wales is sought on the standard notification form. This information is used locally.

  Reports of M. bovis infections are collated by the Public Health Laboratory Service Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre as part of a scheme called the United Kingdom Mycobacterial Resistance Network (Mycobnet). On receipt of a report of M. bovis infection, a questionnaire is sent to the local Consultant in Communicable Disease Control (CCDC) inquiring, among other things, about whether the individual had an agricultural occupation (including working on a farm) or other animal contact.

  Student Nurses
  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what recent assessment he has made of the incidence of financial hardship among student nurses; and if he will make a statement; [120412]

  (2) what representations he has received about the proposal to award employee status to student nurses; and if he will make a statement; [120406]

  (3) what recent representations he has received regarding financial support for student nurses; and if he will make a statement. [120407]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 3 May 2000]: Information gathered by the National Health Service Executive's Regional Offices during 1999 reported a total of 105 payments to degree level students (less than 1 per cent. of the student population) from the NHS Hardship Fund. This year's review of student support arrangements will include examination of the provision made for those unfortunate enough to suffer hardship during their training and will encompass both degree and diploma students.

  We are aware of the support among student nurses regarding the proposal to award them employee status. Indeed, this issue was discussed at a recent meeting with the Head of UNISON Health Group. However, the move away from students' status as employees accompanied improvements in nurse education, which moved training from the health service to higher education, and gave students supernumerary status thereby strengthening their educational experience. These changes were, and still are, supported by the Royal College of Nursing.

  We want to ensure that as many nurses as possible complete their training and go on to work in the NHS, and we recognise the need, therefore, to provide student nurses with the support they need throughout their course. That is why the NHS Bursary Scheme continues to provide more generous support than that available to other students in higher education, and why bursary rates are being increased again by the rate of inflation from September—the third successive annual increase.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list(a) the (i) executive agencies, (ii) non-departmental public bodies and (iii) local public spending bodies within his Department's remit, (b) the contractors employed by his Department and (c) the NHS bodies whose work (1) has been transferred since 1992 and (2) is planned to be transferred in the next 12 months (y) to and (z) from the Northern Region. [121051]

  Ms Stuart
  (a) (i) The Department sponsors the following executive agencies:

  Medical Devices Agency

  Medicines Control Agency

  NHS Estates Agency

  NHS Pensions Agency

  NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency

  (a) (ii) The Department sponsors the following non-Departmental public bodies (NDPBs):
  324W
  Executive NDPBs

  Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work

  Commission for Health Improvement

  English National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting

  Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority

  Medical Practices Committee

  National Biological Standards Board

  National Radiological Protection Board

  Public Health Laboratory Service Board

  Advisory NDPBs

  Administration of Radioactive Substances Advisory Committee

  Advisory Board on the Registration of Homoeopathic Products

  Advisory Committee on Borderline Substances

  Advisory Committee on Dangerous Pathogens

  Advisory Committee on Distinction Awards

  Advisory Committee on Genetic Testing

  Advisory Committee on Hepatitis

  Advisory Committee on NHS Drugs

  Advisory Committee on the Microbiological Safety of Foods

  Advisory Group on Teenage Pregnancy

  British Pharmacopoeia Commission

  Committee for Monitoring the Agreements on Tobacco Advertising and Sponsorship

  Committee on Medical Aspects of Food and Nutrition Policy

  Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment

  Committee on Medical effects of Air Pollutants

  Committee on the Carcinogenicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment

  Committee on the Safety of Medicines

  Committee on the Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment

  Dental Rates Study Group

  Expert Advisory Group on AIDS

  Gene Therapy Advisory Committee

  Genetics and Insurance Committee

  Human Genetics Commission

  Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation

  Medical Workforce Standing Advisory Committee

  Medicines Commission

  National Centre for Continuing Professional Education of Dentists

  Pharmacists' Review Panel

  Review Body for Nursing Staff, Midwives, Health Visitors and Professions Allied to Medicine

  Review Body on Doctors' and Dentists' Remuneration Standing Dental Advisory Committee

  Standing Medical Advisory Committee

  Standing Nursing and Midwifery Advisory Committee

  Standing Pharmaceutical Advisory Committee

  Steering Committee on Pharmacy Postgraduate Education

  UK Advisory Panel for Health Care Workers Infected with Bloodborne Viruses

  United Kingdom Xenotransplantation Interim Regulatory Authority

  Unrelated Live Transplant Regulatory Authority

  Wider Health Working Group

  Tribunals

  Mental Health Review Tribunal

  National Health Service Tribunal

  Protection of Children Act Tribunal

  Registered Homes Tribunal

  (a) (iii) Local public spending bodies within the Department's remit:

  There are currently 99 Health Authorities, 364 NHS Trusts, and 17 Primary Care Trusts operational in England.
  325W
  (b) The contractors employed by the Department:

  The information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  (c) NHS bodies:

  On 1 April 1996 the Northern and Yorkshire Regional Health Authority became the Northern and Yorkshire Regional Office of the National Health Service Executive, Department of Health. At the same time its offices were relocated from Newcastle and Harrogate to a single site in Durham City.

  Community Midwives
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to improve the pay and conditions of community midwives. [121068]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 5 May 2000]: The Review Body for Nursing Staff, Midwives, Health Visitors and Professions Allied to Medicine (NPRB) make recommendations on pay for community midwives employed on national terms and conditions. For the second year running, the Government have accepted in full the pay increases recommended by The Review Body for Nursing Staff, Midwives Health Visitors and Professions Allied to Medicine—an across the board increase of 3.4 per cent. for 2000–01, and for the second year running these increases will be paid in full without staging.

  The Government's proposals for modernising the NHS pay system "Agenda for Change" were published last year. For nurses, midwives and health visitors this will mean a new career structure to replace outdated clinical grades, better career progression, fairer rewards for team working, developing new skills and taking on extended roles. The proposals are currently under negotiation with the unions and professional organisations.

  Antidepressants
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he is taking to reduce deaths resulting from(a) Dothiepin and (b) other antidepressants. [120929]

  Ms Stuart
  The majority of deaths recorded in association with antidepressants are as a result of suicide. We take the issue of suicide very seriously. The development of strategies to reduce suicide and improve the mental well-being of the general population are a major part of our programme outlined in the White Paper—"Saving Lives: our Healthier Nation"—and in the National Service Framework for mental health.

  Advice is given to health professionals in British National Formulary which advises that patients treated for depression should be assessed frequently for suicidal tendencies and that limited quantities of antidepressant drugs should be prescribed at any one time to reduce the risk of overdosage. The Summaries of Product Characteristics for antidepressants warn that patients at risk of suicide should be monitored closely. As with all medicines, the safety of antidepressants is continually monitored by the Medicines Control Agency and the independent expert advisory body, the Committee on Safety of Medicines.

  NHS Trusts (London)
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the board members of each NHS trust in the London NHS region with responsibility for(a) corporate governance and (b) maintaining a register of interests for (i) all senior staff and (ii) consultants. [121203]

  Mr. Denham
  The information is not collected by the Department. However, it is commonly the board secretary who has responsibility for these issues.

  Metered-dose Inhalers
  Mr. Derek Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the cost to the NHS of migrating all recipient patients from metered dose inhalers to alternative pharmaceutical delivery systems. [120424]

  Ms Stuart
  No estimate has been made because such costs cannot be readily quantified.

  Operating Theatres (Chemicals)
  Mr. Derek Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussion he has had with safety experts and clinicians concerning the use of(a) ammonia and (b) hydrocarbons in hospital theatres. [120425]

  Ms Stuart
  The use of ammonia and hydrocarbons in hospitals is a matter for individual hospital trusts in conjunction with the Health and Safety Executive. All hospitals are required to undertake risk assessments under the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health regulations. This covers assessment of all potentially dangerous chemicals, including ammonia and hydrocarbons, in all hospital areas, including theatres.

  Nurses
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what the cost was of the television advertising campaign which described the average nurse as earning over £20,000 per year; [121128]

  (2) what the average income is of a nurse, excluding allowances; [121129]

  (3) what representations he has received regarding the television advertising campaign which described the average nurse as earning over £20,000 per year; [121130]

  (4) who authorised the television advertisement stating that the average nurse earns over £20,000 per year; [121131]

  (5) how his Department estimated the average income of a nurse for inclusion in the recent television advertising campaign; and if he will make a statement; [121132]

  (6) if he will make a statement about the future of the television advertising campaign to recruit nurses. [121133]

  Mr. Denham
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State authorised the recent nurse recruitment campaign
  327W
  which cost £4.2 million and was launched on 28 February, and included television advertising. The campaign will run for three years. The current campaign follows on from the success of last year's recruitment campaign. Over 45,000 people have inquired about a career in the National Health Service, or returning to the NHS, as a result of it.

  Recruitment campaigns including local campaigns, are not a one-off exercise and we expect them to become a regular feature of what the NHS does. We will continue to review the success of television advertising and other ongoing activity to recruit and retain staff.

  The original television advertisement stated "The average full-time qualified nurse earns over £20,000 per annum". This figure was drawn from the Department of Health annual earnings surveys, which show that from April 1999 gross average annual earnings for qualified nurses working full-time in the NHS were around £20,700.
  328W
  This figure includes allowances paid for working unsocial hours, but excludes earnings from overtime, earnings for the more senior clinical H and I grades, and nurses in management posts. The average basic salary for all full-time qualified nursing staff, after implementation of the April 2000 pay award is £19,500. Unsocial hours payments bring average earnings for full-time qualified nurses to over £20,000.

  Fewer than 20 people have made representations about the advertising campaign. We also received representations from the ITC about the television advertisement. Departmental officials met with the ITC. The ITC accepted our statement was factually correct. To reflect the increase in nurses' pay arising from the 2000–01 pay settlement the wording was changed. This wording was agreed with the ITC. The agreed working was: "From April (2000) average annual earnings for full-time qualified nurses are over £21,000, including allowances".

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

Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay
Matthew Alan Oakeshott, Esquire, having been created Baron Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, of Seagrove Bay in the County of Isle of Wight, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Thomson of Monifieth and the Lord Jenkins of Hillhead.
Lord Greaves
Anthony Robert Greaves, Esquire, having been created Baron Greaves, of Pendle in the County of Lancashire, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Tordoff and the Baroness Hamwee, and made the solemn Affirmation.

National Health Service: Waiting List Targets
2.48 p.m.
Lord Feldmanasked Her Majesty's Government:
When they expect to meet their National Health Service waiting list targets.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, we are well on course to achieve the 100,000 reduction promised by the end of this Parliament. The latest data (for end February 2000) show that the number of patients on National Health Service waiting lists is now 70,000 below the level inherited.
Lord Feldman: My Lords, I am glad that the figures are near to hand. However, the 70,000 figure relates to three to four months ago. I should have thought that after 27,000 hours of work the early pledge of a 100,000 reduction would have been better achieved. Have the figures for the waiting list for the waiting list improved? These have doubled in the past three years. I heard the Leader of the House—
Noble Lords: Question!
Lord Feldman: My Lords, I am coming to the question. I heard the Leader of the House comment that the NHS waiting list target was a blip. As a blip is a minor error or deviation, will the Minister agree that the figure was more of a flop than a blip?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: No, my Lords; winter pressures had an impact on the waiting list figures, but we expected that. We made the pledge to reduce the figure by 100,000 during the lifetime of this Parliament. We are well on course to do that. Far from the figure being a blip, it demonstrates a consistent approach to tackling waiting lists over our three years in office.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, after three years it is clear that the Government's concentration on inpatient waiting lists has had the knock-on effect of a severe deterioration in out-patient waiting times. Those have doubled since the general election. Will the Government now abandon these pointless targets; or do they propose to ask Sir Richard Branson to deal with the matter?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the noble Lord is wrong in his analysis. Of course we have to tackle out-patient waiting lists with the same determination as we tackle in-patient waiting lists. In the financial year between 1996–97 and 1998–99 the number of out-patients treated rose from 10,248,000 to 10,646,000. At the same time as making considerable inroads into the in-patient waiting lists, we have treated hundreds of thousands of addition al patients. That is a measure of our success.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, will the Minister assure us that there is no sense in which the number of more difficult cases on the waiting list has been reduced in order to deal with the easier cases? Can he stand at the Dispatch Box and tell us that there is no sense in which that has occurred?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the position is clear. In the NHS, emergency cases are always treated first. Urgent treatments are always given priority, but, ultimately, matters rest on the individual clinical decisions of individual doctors.
Earl Howe: My Lords, does not the Minister agree that waiting times, not the number of people wailing, is the better measure of the ability of the NHS to cope with the demands placed on it? Furthermore, is it not the case that since the Government took office the number of patients waiting for more than a year to see a consultant has risen from 30,100 to 51,900?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, if you tackle waiting lists, you tackle waiting times. I remind the noble Earl that, under the Patient's Charter, his party pledged to end waits of longer than 18 months. His government failed to succeed in that pledge. This Government are determined to tackle waiting lists and to speed up treatment for all patients. It is a key indicator in our modernisation of the health service.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, when the Government stop telling themselves that they are doing so much better than the previous government and think about the present and the future, are they

1195
satisfied with the figures which my noble friend Lord Howe has given? Can the Minister say whether they are correct and whether the Government are satisfied with them?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, as a result of the deficits and pressures on the health service when we came to office, there was at the beginning of our term, as the noble Earl suggested, an increase in the number of patients waiting for treatment. However, in the actions that the Government have taken, a determined effort has been made to reduce that. Therefore, we are very much on course to meet the target that we pledged at the last election.

Roads Maintenance: Funding
2.54 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Taraasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in view of the annual Local Authority Road Maintenance Survey published on 17th April, local authorities are receiving enough money to maintain their roads and road safety.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): My Lords, the Government have reversed the cuts in maintenance expenditure made during the mid-1990s and are continuing to increase funding levels. Increases in funding take several years to be reflected in condition survey results. We are currently investigating ways to produce a more accurate estimate of maintenance need and are considering whether further funding should be made available as part of the current spending review.
Authorities fund road safety schemes from their transport single block allocations. Road safety priorities are set by authorities in their road safety strategies.
Funding levels in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are the responsibility of the devolved administrations.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer. Does he recall that in 1998 the then Transport Minister said:
"Maintenance of existing roads is our number one priority"?
How is it then that on local authority and on national roads the Government have spent less in the past three years than did the Conservative government in the three years previous to that? Is it not also the case that expenditure on local authority roads is set to fall in 2001–02, according to figures produced by the House of Commons Library?
Is the Minister further aware that 75 per cent of local authorities believe that there is a threat to the safety of road users due to the under-funding of road maintenance?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as regards the noble Lord's final point, I accept that the conditions survey indicates a problem with a number of local roads, which in certain circumstances can pose a safety problem. However, I entirely refute the rest of his question. As regards local authority roads, the previous government in their last four years cut expenditure by 7 per cent whereas this Government have increased it by 11 per cent in the past three years.
As regards national roads, we have provided more additional funding for the Highways Agency maintenance. The noble Lord might be slightly misinformed about the level of Highways Agency expenditure. That is a common fault in debates because some of the expenditure has been transferred to the GLA and that does not appear in the figures.
Apart from that, we are continuing to increase both the capital funding of maintenance through the local transport plan and the amount allocated in the SSA calculations.
Lord Islwyn: My Lords, as Britain is essentially a road-based economy, does the Minister agree that it is essential properly to maintain our road network?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, yes. However, I find myself in a cultural warp in that noble Lords are urging me to dig more holes in the roads. However, in a positive sense, the maintenance of roads is important and a proper programme is necessary for Highways Agency roads and local authority roads. Both are being addressed by the Government, but it takes time to feed through. Furthermore, we are still suffering from the cut in the mid-1990s.
Lord Walpole: My Lords, it is easy to blame this and the previous governments. However, does not the Minister agree that conditions last winter did more damage to the roads than can be remembered during the past 20 years? Rural roads—and I speak particularly about Norfolk where there are several thousand miles—are dehaunched, debanked and all the corners have disappeared. The amount of money required to make them passable by decent traffic in time for next winter is phenomenal.
Will the Government look further into the experiments being carried out in Norfolk on quiet lanes? For a start, I hope that many roads will be shut off and gated in order to stop heavy transport using roads that are unsuitable.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, according to the latest survey, rural roads are among those which have shown the worst decline in conditions. However, how the backlog is dealt with is a matter for the highways authorities concerned. We have provided additional money and are looking to the coming spending round to see whether further allocations are required. It is most important that if funds are allocated it is within a systematic timetable of maintenance, because it has

1197
previously been changed from one year to the next. The Government and a number of local authorities are taking initiatives in that respect.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, can the Minister tell us whether the increased money which he claims has been allocated to roads—with regard to my local area I believe that that is probably the case in that the present levels provided by the Government are higher than those of the previous government—will make a real difference to the number of roads the technical life of which is now less than 20 years?
Lord Whitty: Yes, my Lords. If the maintenance programme is allocated according to priority in the way suggested by the UK pavement management system, which local authorities are now adopting, clearly there would be a reduction in the number of roads with the shortest apparent life. However, I suspect that the noble Baroness knows that serious technical arguments exist as to how we measure the outstanding life of roads and, therefore, the maintenance requirement.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, what steps is the Minister taking to measure the effect on road safety of roads in poor condition?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as we spelt out in the road safety strategy which we issued a couple of months ago, among the most important contributors to road safety are the engineering and maintenance of roads. That is stressed in our latest guidance to local transport plans, and local authorities are well aware of and taking note of it. Therefore, clearly safety is mainstreamed into road design and road maintenance programmes.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, for the benefit of the House, can the Minister clarify the Government's position with regard to congestion charging schemes as a means of paying for increased road maintenance, such as has been proposed, I understand, within central London?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the Transport Bill, which shortly will be before your Lordships' House, will provide local authorities with powers to impose road-user charging or workplace parking levies in their areas as part of an integrated transport policy, as agreed by the Government through the transport safety plan.
So far as concerns the position of London, a parallel provision was provided in the GLA Bill passed last year. Given the preparation time and the need to make improvements in public transport, it is unlikely that many of those schemes will come into play in as short a period as three or four years. However, they represent important powers for local authorities, 25 of whom have taken them up as well as, so I understand from matters over the past couple of days, the GLA.
1198
They could make a major contribution both to rationing traffic and to financing improvements in public transport and roads.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, can the Minister say what percentage of capital spending on roads by central government is spent on maintenance? Does he believe that that percentage is adequate, and should it not be constant?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I shall have to write to the noble Lord with regard to total capital spending. From recollection, total road spending would account for approximately 40 per cent of the Highways Agency spending. That is the only part that central government spends directly. With regard to the amounts that we give to local authorities, the revenue grant to local authorities has increased over the past three years by 11 per cent and the capital grants provided through the local transport plans have increased by 24 per cent. Of course, I refer to England. Noting the noble Lord who asked the question, the situation in Wales is a matter for the Welsh Assembly.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I note that my noble friend says that the Government are allocating funds on the basis of needs. Does that mean that they take no account of net per capita income in different parts of the country? On that basis, for example, London would receive nothing.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I believe that that question raises slightly wider problems than local authority finance devolution and public finances generally. The roads formula is based on a mixture of needs and the general indicators for local authorities. We are examining the basis for the formula and for local government finance in general. However, in principle the money is allocated on the basis of a mixture of general needs and of roads requirements.

Montenegro
3.4 p.m.
Baroness Rawlingsasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have had discussions with the Russian Government on Montenegro.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, we are in regular contact with Moscow on a wide range of issues, including Balkans affairs. There have been no recent talks specifically on the subject of Montenegro.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. However, did the discussions include the effect of the grain blockage that Serbia has imposed on Montenegro? How serious an effect do Her Majesty's Government feel that that has had on Montenegrin stabilities? As EU Finance Ministers are

1199
about to meet in order to authorise approximately 20 million dollars for programmes to support the 11th June elections in Montenegro, will we be supporting the move to send international observers to the Republic following that initiative?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the blockade has obviously caused a great deal of difficulty. The FRY Government have imposed economic measures against Montenegro since late last year and the recent imposition of a complete economic blockade is a significant escalation. However, the EU assistance allocated to Montenegro aims to alleviate the pressures that the blockade has exacerbated. Obviously, the UK condemns those destabilising tactics on the part of Milosevic's regime, and we shall continue to be a strong supporter of Montenegro during its difficulties. However, one must remember that it remains an integral part of the FRY.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, given the extreme importance of indicating our support for democracy in Montenegro, will the Minister consider further the suggestion made by the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, about sending a supervisory team for the municipal elections on 11th June in Podgorica and Novi Herzog? Can she also say whether there is any advance with regard to the suggestion that I raised some time ago about the possibility of establishing an EU office in Montenegro in order to make it clear that we are concerned about the future and the stability of that small province?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I can certainly say to both noble Baronesses that we shall look at the matter of sending observers. I cannot give a direct answer in relation to that matter, but we certainly understand the issue.
So far as concerns the second issue, your Lordships will of course remember that Montenegro remains an integral part of the FRY, which obviously creates certain difficulties for us. We have a number of outlets in Montenegro which presently are capable of keeping our bilateral relations alive. That situation will continue for the time being.
Lord Judd: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that any lasting and viable solution to the formidable problems of the Balkans necessarily will involve Russia? Will she therefore confirm that, in the regular discussions between the Government and Russia, the Balkans and the long-term solutions to its problems feature highly?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I can certainly reassure noble Lords that the Balkans and its problems are issues which continue to be raised between ourselves and the Russians. They are extremely important and obviously we are all trying to do as much as we can to ensure that the Balkans' security becomes a reality and not merely a hope.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the blockade already referred to is illegal in terms of international law? Can the matter be taken to the International Court of Justice? Will she also confirm that any further attempts by the Milosevic regime to alter the status quo in Montenegro will be firmly resisted, particularly by NATO.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, those issues are causing us great concern. We shall keep them under active observation and consider what best to do next. But the EU has done a significant amount to try to counteract the effect of the blockade by the increase in the assistance which we are giving to Montenegro which is, at present, the most helpful way forward.

Allen Report
3.9 p.m.
Baroness Richardson of Calowasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have any plans to implement the recommendations of the 1991 Allen report that followed the Hillsborough, Clapham and "Marchioness" disasters, with regard to post-traumatic stress counselling for casualties of major disasters.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, although never formally endorsed by the Department of Health, the Allen report contained many helpful recommendations for a range of organisations. Some of those recommendations are now dated and we are considering whether new guidance is needed.
Baroness Richardson of Calow: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply and I am glad to know that something is being done, not only through government circles but also in other areas.
Is the Minister aware that, of the 70 per cent who are affected in major incidents, 40 per cent are still affected a year after the incident and that undiagnosed and untreated post-traumatic stress disorder causes great problems within the National Health Service? It bears human and economic costs.
I suggest that that is true not only of the large numbers affected by major disasters but also of individuals who are affected as victims of violent crime. Is the Minister satisfied with the progress made in the nine years since the Allen report suggested that there should be a nationally integrated service to provide post-traumatic counselling facilities? I understand that currently such provision is available mainly in London and the South East, with few facilities provided elsewhere, and that at present the waiting time for initial consultation, even in London, is 12 to 18 months. Given the sad inevitability of future major disasters, is the Minister satisfied that enough is being done in that regard?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I accept that the noble Baroness has pin-pointed challenges which we face to ensure that a sufficient range of services is available. I assure her that we have established a work force action team that is looking closely at the work force issues which she has raised. I should say also to the House that we have established a national advisory group for psychotherapy which, in itself, is taking an overview of education and training requirements. I hope that that will help us to meet some of the challenges to which the noble Baroness referred.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate: My Lords, is the Minister aware that stress is a perfectly normal reaction to major disaster and that there is a growing body of opinion which suggests that the wholesale stress counselling of people involved with major disasters may be damaging?
Does my noble friend also agree that, if that is applied to the emergency services and to the Armed Forces, it can be enfeebling and can be similar to responding to a burglar alarm by simply switching off the alarm? We should take great care before we encourage the growth of what I see as a growing stress industry.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I have a great deal of sympathy for that point. Of course, one should not underestimate the severe trauma which many people have suffered as a result of some of the tragedies which have occurred in this country. In those cases, it is absolutely right that we should provide the most effective counselling and support service possible. But it is important that we should not push counselling onto people who do not want to receive it. We must accept that in many situations it is normal and appropriate to have emotions of fear and stress.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I was present at Hillsborough and witnessed scenes which I hope never to see repeated in my lifetime. Is my noble friend aware that the pain and suffering of the bereaved were aggravated greatly by the media treatment of the disaster? Is he satisfied that the Allen report's six recommendations on media issues have been followed in respect of subsequent disasters? Does he not agree that those should be looked at again?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I certainly believe that my noble friend is right to raise the issue of the media and the often intrusive impact which that may have on people who are suffering great trauma. However, as a general point, I believe that we have learnt lessons from disasters like Hillsborough. Certainly, as regards my own department, if one looks at the recent Paddington disaster, there is no doubt that the provision of health services and the coordination between emergency services were excellent. While there are always new lessons to learn, we must recognise that we have learnt from those tragedies. I believe that we have a very good system of emergency planning as a result.

Business
3.14 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m., my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement which is being made in another place on Northern Ireland. That will be followed by my noble friend Lady Scotland who will, again with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement on Sierra Leone.

Business of the House: Debates, 11th and 12th May
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order 40 (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be dispensed with on Thursday 11th May to allow the Motion standing in the name of the Baroness Jay of Paddington to be taken before the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill, and also on Friday 12th May to allow the Motion standing in the name of the Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean to be taken before the European Union (Implications of Withdrawal) Bill.—(Baroness Jay of Paddington.)
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I appreciate that it is in no way the fault of the noble Baroness the Leader of the House, but I wonder whether I could raise the problem of the confusing way in which these two debates have been scheduled on the Minute.
Noble Lords will have noticed that they were first scheduled in the Minute on 3rd May, when the defence debate correctly appeared as being the first business for next Friday, 12th May, with the Committee stage of the Bill in my name on the implications of withdrawal from the EU as the second business. I am sure that this is indeed the appropriate order and I make no complaint about it, and I am extremely grateful to the usual channels that my Bill should go ahead at all.
But the purpose of my intervention is to point out that in the Minute of 4th May, the batting order was reversed with my Bill appearing to be taken before the defence debate. My fear is that a number of noble Lords—and indeed, one has already spoken to me—will have therefore concluded that they could contribute to my debate and get away in good time for the weekend, probably well before lunch., and may have made arrangements to do so. We are, after all, talking about a Friday in May.
But now the batting order is to be reversed again, back to what it was when we started on 3rd May, which may cause further inconvenience and confusion with both those who wish to speak in the defence debate and in the European debate. So I merely wish to ask the noble Baroness whether she could do something, perhaps with the authorities of the House, maybe to arrange the use of italics, which I understand

1203
is quite widely used on the Minute in the other place, so we would all know where we stand on a Friday afternoon in May.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising those matters which, as he says, are particularly relevant to a Friday afternoon in May. I have an elaborate explanation in front of me which I am prepared to convey to the noble Lord in writing or indeed to repeat, but I fear that that may cause enormous exhaustion for the House.
Perhaps I may try to explain the matter in one sentence. The second part of the Motion, which refers to Friday, 12th May, which I have just repeated, corrects what was wrongly printed on the Minute and puts the business back in the order that it should be. I agree with the noble Lord that sometimes the complexities of what appears on the Minute and the reasons that it appears in the order that it does are somewhat difficult to follow. I agree with him that perhaps we need to pursue this issue. The noble Lord may care to raise this during the debate in the name of my noble friend Lord Peston on Wednesday, although I believe the Speakers' List is rather long. I believe that it is an issue which we could usefully address, if not then, perhaps on another occasion.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill
3.18 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Hollis of Heigham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
[Amendment No. 1 not moved.]
Earl Russellmoved Amendment No. 2:
Before Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
MEANING OF "CHILD"
(" . In section 55(1) of the Child Support Act 1991—

(a) in paragraph (a), for "16" there shall be substituted "17", and

(b) for paragraph (b) there shall be substituted—

"
(b) he is receiving full-time education (including education to the conclusion of a first degree course);".").
1204
The noble Earl said: Amendment No. 2 deals with people who are older than those normally dealt with by the CSA. It extends the right to receive maintenance to the age of 17 or up to the conclusion of full-time education, whichever may be the later.
Where agreements for the maintenance of children are reached by negotiation between parents, it is perfectly common for them to include provision for the higher education of the child concerned. Indeed, that is a point I make from memory and with some gratitude. Where a system is imposed and where people have no right to negotiate and are required to accept particular terms willy-nilly, sometimes there is a feeling that when people have done what is imposed that no more should be required of them.
That is a threat to the continuing education of all children who come under the regime of the CSA. The extension from 16 to 17 is because we do not want children compelled to leave school in the middle of a school year. It is a regular academic convention, fairly well understood in negotiations between the academic community and the Government that financial support lasts until the end of whichever course is in progress.
As a serving university teacher, I must declare an interest in this amendment, a point that applies even more to the second part of the amendment which deals with the continuation of support through a period of full-time education. I believe that the Minister, in her academic capacity, will probably not dispute that point, although in her ministerial capacity she may feel that she must dispute it.
In practical terms, it is now impossible for people to go through a university education without a significant amount of parental support. I do not refer just to tuition fees, although in that context they have not helped. First and foremost, the support available under the loan system and under the access funds, even if the student concerned is extremely fortunate to receive support from them, is simply insufficient to maintain a student for 52 weeks of the year. Without living at home at the parents' expense through a considerable part of the year, people simply cannot get through.
It is no good saying that they should work for the whole of that time. I have learned a great deal more than I would have liked about the difficulties of the labour market in Bournemouth during the Christmas period. They are considerable. Bournemouth is not a unique example. In practice, without parental support, I would not advise prospective students to set out on a university education unless they are mature students with several thousands of pounds in the bank.
If this amendment is not accepted, one of the effects of the CSA regime will be to exclude those affected by it from a university education. That is a classic case of the law of the unintended consequence. I do not believe that Ministers expect any such thing, so I hope that they will consider it. I hope that they will take advice on the matter from sources of information

1205
slightly wider than simply the Department for Education and Employment. I hope that they will actually consider the real situation. I beg to move.
Lord Higgins: I have two preliminary remarks. First, we are now embarking on that section of the Bill concerned with the Child Support Agency and later we shall turn to the section on pensions and other items. Once again, I want to put on record that packaging matters that are totally disparate and have no connection whatever into one Bill is a matter of concern. Perhaps the House can attend to that point in debates that are scheduled for later this week.
Secondly, I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, who, before the Bill reached this stage, helpfully held discussions and provided additional information. Also the Explanatory Notes on the Bill are available. I know that to a large extent she has been concerned in such matters. On this side of the Chamber, we intend to seek to improve the Bill in any constructive way in that we can.
The points raised by the noble Earl are important. I am inclined to agree with him that it is difficult nowadays for anyone to complete a university education without a considerable degree of parental support. I shall listen with interest to what the Minister has to say on that subject.
Lord Renton: My noble friend has referred to completing a university education, but generally a university education does not start until people have reached the age of 18, whereas this amendment deals with those who are 17 years old.
Lord Higgins: My noble friend is absolutely right in that respect. Perhaps a commentary on present day life is that on the one hand we have an amendment—
Earl Russell: Perhaps I may assist the noble Lord, Lord Renton. The amendment contains two separate clauses: paragraph (a) concerns people up to the age of 17 and paragraph (b) covers,
"full-time education (including education to the conclusion of a first degree course)".
Those are two separate propositions.
Lord Higgins: I imagine that my noble friend had taken that point. I understand that there are two separate issues, but my noble friend suggests that we are extending the definition of what is meant by "child" to cover someone who by any normal set of definitions, would not be regarded as a child. I leave the Minister to comment on whether that falls outside the Long Title of the Bill.
Perhaps it is also a sign of the times that we are considering what arrangements should be made for parents to support their children who undertake education and in later amendments we shall consider whether those in full-time education should support their children. Both sides of that issue arise and no doubt we shall come to the second matter later in the
1206
proceedings. None the less, I believe that the noble Earl has raised an important point. We look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say on the subject.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Does the noble Earl, Lord Russell, realise that as a result of his party's activities in Scotland, Scottish university students do not pay the sum required for their fees until they have finished their university courses and are earning, I believe, over £10,000? If this amendment is accepted, does he anticipate that the maintenance for young Scottish students who are at university will be at a different rate and that an allowance will be made? As he will appreciate, this Bill applies to Scotland, and I believe that in sorting out one anomaly he will create another. Perhaps he can tell the Committee how he will make sure that that arrangement is fair.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: New Clause 2 seeks to extend the definition of a child, for child support purposes, by raising the upper age limit for child support liability to the date on which full-time education up to degree level ends. Under the proposed new clause children who leave school before that stage would receive child support until their 17th birthday or until they complete full-time education including a first degree course. Currently they remain a child for child support purposes until they are 16 or under 19 and in full-time non-advanced education.
The existing definition of a child for child support purposes reflects the rules of eligibility for child benefit. That is the point at whi.ch children are normally regarded as no longer dependent on their parents for benefit purposes. Much of the benefit system uses entitlement to child benefit as the simplest measure of establishing when a child or a young person is treated as a dependent. For example, young people are no longer treated as dependent for the purpose of assessing the amount of their parents' entitlement to income-based JSA and IS when child benefit ceases. In other words, the child may or may not be entitled in its own right.
This rule is relatively transparent and easy for parents to understand. The point at which child benefit ceases is a sensible and straightforward point at which to end child support liability. We must maintain simplicity in the reformed scheme because we all know where complexity can take us.
Not only would moving away from the existing definition of a child complicate a reformed system; it would also not be clear to whom the maintenance would be payable. Should it be paid to the parent with care, the student, or even to the college? Indeed, in many—if not most—cases both parents would be treated as non-resident parents, thus further complicating the child support rules.
The amendment would also have the effect of defining as children young adults at college or university who are substantially older than 19. If I refer back a few years, I recall that a significant number of the students I taught did not complete their degrees until they were 23 or 24. This would cut across the general responsibility for student maintenance which

1207
is based not on support from parents but rather on loans repayable by the young person over time as future income from employment rises.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, I do of course favour parental support for students who are, by my definition, adults. However, on the assumption that the noble Earl's amendment were to be accepted, I should not wish to see students at university being treated by their institutions as in loco parentis. That would turn adults into dependent children. I am not sure that the noble Lord would wish to see that either. I am loath to turn adults back into children for the purposes of maintenance.
Furthermore, in extreme cases under existing legislation—Schedule 1 to the Children Act 1989—provision is in place for a student aged 18 or over to apply to a court for an order requiring his separated parents to pay maintenance while he attends college. I hope that, with this explanation, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Renton: I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Russell, in his desire to see that the parents of young people—I use that expression intentionally—of 17 years of age who stay on at school to carry on their studies continue to receive support. Furthermore, I agree with what was said by my noble friend on the Front Bench. However, I believe that we must avoid a legislative muddle.
As the noble Baroness pointed out, various different provisions relate to the age of young people. That should make us extremely careful in our use of the word "child". A relevant factor which I do not believe was mentioned by the noble Baroness is that when a young person reaches the age of 17, he or she is a free person. If a young person decides to give up his education, under statute, that person is entitled to do so.
Although I have sympathy in substance with the motive of the noble Earl, especially as regards the first part of his new clause, I think that we would be rash to deal with the matter in the way that he has suggested. However, it is an important issue and perhaps on Report, with further thought about the drafting, we can perhaps get it right.
Earl Russell: Perhaps I may respond, first, to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour. I am of course aware of the force of the point that she made. The main thrust of my argument related to the level of maintenance available to the student, not to the tuition fees. However, the matter of tuition fees clearly establishes a difference and that difference should be taken into account.
However, when we discuss primary legislation, I cannot help but think—and here I invoke the words of the noble Lord, Lord Renton—that this is the kind of point that may be a little too detailed to be dealt with
1208
in primary legislation. Perhaps I should have provided for a regulation-making power in the amendment. I admit that that cannot be ruled out altogether.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: That is all fine, but I must say to the noble Earl that his party has helped to make the university funding system disparate across the United Kingdom. Parents of students attending Scottish universities will not have to pay the £1,000 a year that those at universities south of the Border will have to pay. I do not think that it behoves his party to recommend to the House that students should be treated in the same way at different universities. The Liberal Democrats cannot have their cake and eat it. I believe that the noble Earl must make some allowance for that in his amendment.
Earl Russell: I thought that that was precisely the point that I had just conceded. If that was not clear, then I state again that I do concede the point. My query was only whether primary legislation would provide the correct way to respond to it and that is a point on which I shall be perfectly happy to take advice.
I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, regarding the definition of a child. It is clear that what has been happening over the past 40 years is that social maturity has been getting earlier while financial maturity has been getting later. If the Minister looks at the record of national insurance contributions towards the state pension, I believe that she will probably confirm that a difficulty we are running into is that the proportion of people who have full and adequate contribution records before the age of 25 is going down. It may be that what we need to move away from is the single, isolated definition of a "child". The situation exists and we have to live in the real world. For that reason, we have to cope with it. I am perfectly prepared to entertain the possibility that the amendment I have tabled is not perhaps the best solution. However, before I can be convinced of that, I should be extremely grateful if a better way could in turn be suggested. If this is not the best way, then it follows that there must be a better approach.
I appreciate the Minister's desire for simplicity because it would be awfully nice. However, her pursuit of simplicity resembles a little my childhood game of chess. My game would have been absolutely brilliant if the other player had not moved in the meantime. The world is an extremely complicated place. These problems exist and one way or another we must tackle then.
I do not believe that it is the Government's intention to exclude children benefiting from the CSA regime from the benefits of higher education. However, if it is not their intention, then I believe that they must seek a way to ensure that that intention is not realised by inadvertence.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I wonder why the noble Earl thinks that because we are continuing the status quo on child support we are somehow excluding for the first time children who would otherwise receive

1209
maintenance under his proposed amendment from access to higher education? I could take his point if we were changing the situation as regards the age of the child, but that is the existing situation and we are not changing it. As the current Government are seeking to extend access to higher and further education to nearly 50 per cent of the population, I do not understand or take his point.
Earl Russell: I did not say, "for the first time". If the M Mister refers to the proceedings on the 1995 Bill, she will see that I raised an identical point. It is not the first time, and I would not dream of pretending that I am raising it for the first time. Furthermore, I suspect that it will not be the last. However, for the moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Northbournemoved Amendment No. 3:
Before Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
THE GENERAL DUTY
(" . For section 1(I) of the Child Support Act 1991 there shall be substituted—
"(1) For the purposes of this Act any person who is the mother or the father of a qualifying child is responsible insofar as they are able—

(a) to ensure that that child has the material support which it needs; and

(b) to provide or procure for that child the nurture, love, care, guidance and education which it needs.

(1A) In making provision for the nurture, love, care, guidance and education of the child both parents shall have regard to the principle that the best interests of the child are paramount.
(1B) The responsibilities of parents under subsection (1) have effect from the day the child is born till the clay on which it attains the age of 18 years.
(1C) Except as otherwise provided by agreement in writing or by an enactment, parental responsibilities under subsection (1) are joint and several as between the father and the mother.
(1D) In fulfilling their responsibilities under subsection (I) parents shall be entitled to make use of such services and facilities as are provided by the state."").
The noble Lord said: This amendment would replace Section 1(1) of the Child Support Act 1991 which states:
"For the purposes of this Act each parent of a qualifying child is responsible for maintaining him".
My amendment does not alter the main thrust of Section 1(1), but it expands upon it. In particular, it makes it clear that a non-resident father, or indeed a non-resident mother, is responsible not only for the financial maintenance of the child, but also for the other elements that are so important in the nurturing of a child. As far as possible the parent should ensure that the child receives the love, care, guidance and education that it needs. The Government have indicated that that objective is in line with their
1210
intentions. The 1988 Green Paper, Children First: a new approach to child support, made a number of references to that important issue. In the foreword, the Prime Minister stated:
"The well-being of the growing number of children whose parents have separated depends on them receiving the financial and emotional support of both parents wherever they live".
The summary of chapter 3, at page 2, states:
"The Government wants parents to fulfil their responsibilities to their children. The Government wishes to develop an active family policy which links children's rights and parents' responsibilities. Modern families are evolving. But fathers are vital to their children's well- being: children do best when they have two positive and committed parents. The child support scheme should give clear messages about the rights and responsibilities of parenthood".
Chapter 2 states that,
"all children have a right to emotional and financial support from both their parents, wherever they live … 40 per cent of fathers lose all contact with their children within two years of separating. In many people's eyes, the current scheme treats money as the only thing that matters. It gives the message that a non-resident parent's obligations begin and end with a cheque in the post".
So far, so good—in respect of the Green Paper. The White Paper is a good deal more coy on the subject of non-financial obligations. To be fair, chapter 7 is devoted to the subject. It states:
"Paying maintenance is an important part of non-resident parents' continuing responsibilities to their children—hut there is more to being a good parent than this. One of the central questions for separated parents and their children is maintaining continuing contact with non-resident parents … As explained in the Green Paper, we are convinced that one of the reasons for the failure of the existing child support arrangements is that they do not work properly with other family responsibilities. The Government is committed to an interactive family policy which integrates all activities that affect the family, including maintenance and contact".
Surprise, surprise—the Bill makes no reference whatever to anything other than financial matters, which is why I felt it appropriate to explore the Government's thinking by introducing the amendment.
The 1991 legislation was not 100 per cent popular or 100 per cent successful. It was unpopular because it was perceived to be unfair. The Bill does little to make it seem more fair to the absent parent. Admittedly, the Bill simplifies the calculation but it still makes the assumption that financial responsibility is the only thing that really matters. It implies that the absent parent's only responsibility is to pay. It does not refer in any way to the rights or responsibilities that the Government have said absent parents should exercise towards their children—or to the need for the resident parent to make it possible for the absent parent to do that.
The Bill also implies extremely low expectations of the absent parent. People tend to live up to the expectations made of them. Where there are low expectations of children at school, they tend not to do well. Children who are subject to higher expectations do better. I am convinced that the same applies to nonresident parents.
My amendment declares that mothers and fathers are jointly and severally responsible for their child—not only in respect of its material needs but its

1211
emotional, social, educational and support needs. The amendment lays down that the child's non-material needs should be subject always to the best interests of the child. It does not alter the responsibility for maintenance imposed by the Section 1(1) of the 1991 Act but clarifies and expands it.
My amendment also extends the age of responsibility to 18. I confess that I was flying a kite but the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor told me from the Dispatch Box six months ago that he was seriously considering whether the responsibility of families for their children should be extended to age 18. I wonder how that is going.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The noble Lord has more intimate conversations with my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor than I do.
Lord Northbourne: I thought that we had a joined-up government. I have more confidence in joined-up government than the noble Baroness.
3.45 p.m.
Earl Russell: The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor made the remarks in answer to a Starred Question. I remember the occasion well.
Lord Northbourne: I am most grateful to the noble Earl. I set down that Question. Unless some thought is given to the issues that I have raised, there is a serious danger that this legislation will be just as unpopular at the 1991 Act. I do not think that it is a good idea to put unpopular legislation on the statute book. We all remember the poll tax.
Amendment No. 4 is a probing amendment about the definition of a qualifying child. It seems strange that if an absent father, who is liable to pay maintenance under the Bill and the previous legislation, moves back in with the mother of the child, the child is no longer deemed to be a qualifying child—so the father does not have to pay. I may have misinterpreted the Bill but that is how it reads to me.
I hope that the noble Baroness has not been briefed to tear Amendment No. 3 to pieces on the ground that its drafting is defective. I confess that the drafting is probably inadequate but I wanted to raise the principle. I beg to move.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: The noble Lord has said a number of extremely important things and the Minister will probably have to give a complicated reply. The Committee must appreciate that above all children must benefit from what comes out of the Bill. The Minister may tell us that because of the Bill's interaction with the Children Act 1989 and other legislation, provision is already made for most of the matters of concern to the noble Lord. Certainly, the principle that the child's interests are paramount is in the 1989 Act.
The Bill is difficult to understand because, yet again, we are presented with legislation that is drafted to a large extent in terms of amendments to previous Acts,
1212
which one does not have to hand. So a parent will find the new legislation difficult to understand. An overarching clause at the beginning of the Bill to remind parents of their responsibilities would be no bad thing.
Having been involved in legislation about family mediation in Scotland, I know that when separating parents are making arrangements for their children, often it all comes down to a lot of anger with one another over money. It resolves itself into discussions in relation to money and the other important aspects of the position in which their child will be when they separate are forgotten. If this clause is included in the Bill, it will remind parents when they separate, and their legal advisers if they have them, what parenthood is all about.
An overarching clause at the beginning of the Bill, therefore, has much to commend it and I hope that the Government will not resist that suggestion. I can see that the Minister may have to pick up on some of the details of this specific amendment; but if she does not accept it, she may consider introducing something of this kind at a later stage. It would be a human thing to do, and would help parents to meet their obligations under the complicated legislation with which they will be confronted.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: Both the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, and the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, are entirely right to be stressing the need for overarching principles at the start of the Bill. I should briefly like to say that nothing in the amendment conflicts with the other CSA—that is, the Children (Scotland) Act 1995—which lays down in Sections 1 and 2 that parents have a right and duty to maintain contact, in estrangement, with their children. It also lays down that the parent with care must enable that contact.
The Earl of Listowel: Perhaps I may briefly say, as someone who has worked with boys and young men over several years in various capacities, that I have noticed the confusion that young men in particular have when their fathers are not in the picture. They are sometimes confused about their sexual identity when their fathers are not around. They are particularly vulnerable to other men on whom they may wish to model themselves, who are perhaps people we would not wish them to admire and copy. It may be difficult for them to forge a special relationship with a woman later in life and start their own family if they have had no father in the picture.
I am not sure whether this amendment is the best way of solving this problem and increasing the number of fathers who continue to be involved with their sons, but it is an important point. I am sure that the Minister will bear it in mind.
Lord Renton: I hope that the Government will consider sympathetically the move by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, to include this clause, perhaps slightly modified, into the Bill, or something on the same lines.

1213
While we are trying to improve the situation which arises under the Act of 1991, we should seriously make a more positive definition than has so far been made of the responsibilities of parents. I hope that when further considering this matter, both the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, and the noble Baroness, will consider attempting to define the situation that may arise when the parents fail to agree. In those circumstances—it will always be difficult—some guidance may be given, especially when the parents are separated or divorced. In the case of disagreement, it is the parent with custody of the child who should have the last word. That is a point which could be added to the statute.
Earl Russell: I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, on having most eloquently distinguished between the things on which we all agree and those on which we do not. His amendment provides a beautifully drafted piece of common ground from which to begin our debate.
I am glad the noble Lord said what he did about financial maintenance not being the whole story; nevertheless. I am grateful to him for having given me an opportunity to stress once again that the obligation of parents to maintain their children is common ground between all the parties who debate this Bill. I first made that point on the Statement preceding the 1991 Child Support Bill. I have made it many times since. I make it again. Any future debate is how that liability should be calculated, apportioned and assessed; never about whether it should exist.
Lord Northbourne: Perhaps I may interrupt the noble Earl.
Earl Russell: If the noble Lord wishes to say that that was not the whole of his amendment, that was exactly the point I was coming on to. If he wishes to say anything else, I shall give way instantly.
Lord Northbourne: I am grateful to the noble Earl for giving way. I was only going to draw attention to the fact that, while he is right in saying that there is consensus across the Chamber on that subject, there is not necessarily consensus across the country. That is why it is so important for the Government to be absolutely clear what they mean.
Earl Russell: I do not dispute that point for a moment. I would be happy for that to be put into legislation.
Secondly, I am grateful to the noble Lord for having stressed that this is not just about support, and for putting in the words he has about nurture, love, care, guidance and education. Those things are, in the end, probably much more important. I thank the noble Lord also for having worded that passage in a way which is optative and not prescriptive. We all want those things. But how to get them can be a difficult problem in which the heavy-booted intervention of legislation is not always helpful. To have it spelt out in this general way as something to which we can all aspire is exactly right.
1214
Thirdly, the noble Lord is right about the importance of access. But again I am grateful to him for having stuck to a tone which is optative and not prescriptive. The problems of access after matrimonial breakdown are far more difficult to resolve than most of us realise. Resolution in almost all, but not all, cases is something devoutly to be wished for. But when we are dealing with two people who have been badly hurt, we find that they do not always react with the reasonableness one hopes to achieve in a Committee of this House. So again I am glad that the noble Lord has been optative and not prescriptive.
Perhaps I might comment on a couple of other points in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. In relation to the 40 per cent of nonresident parents who lose contact with their children, I understand that there is some dispute as to the academic validity of that figure, but since my information comes to me under Chatham House rules I hope the noble Lord will forgive me if I do not develop the point further.
I refer to the Lord Chancellor's views as to the obligation to maintain 16 and 17 year-olds. Except for 16 and 17 year-olds, all of us are in a position where a residually and fiduciary liability to maintain us if we become destitute rests on somebody; if we are under 16, on parents; if we are over 18, on the state. But in the case of 16 and 17 year-olds it at present rests nowhere. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor made the remarks to which the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, referred, specifically in that context. So if the Minister does not wish him to do that, she knows what she can do about it.
Lord Higgins: The Committee will have listened with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, in moving his amendment, given his considerable experience in various parts of London where there are problems of the kind with which the Bill is seeking to cope. It is true to say, as he did, that the previous legislation was not particularly popular; but it was unpopular largely with people who were not accepting the responsibilities which he is seeking to set out in his amendment. While my own constituency experience was in an area that might have been relatively tranquil compared to parts of London, nevertheless one was struck by the fact that a number of parents were not prepared to accept their responsibilities and were positively determined to resist them. We will turn to that aspect later.
There are other aspects of the noble Lord's amendment that will, again, be reflected in our subsequent debates. He stresses that the responsibilities of parents should be held jointly and severally. A considerable amount of the controversy over the Bill relates to the question of whether both parents should pay or only one, and joint responsibility is a very important aspect of that matter. The noble Lord has tabled another amendment to the 1991 Act, which extends the definition of an absent parent by adding the words "or is not contributing to

1215
his maintenance". It would be helpful to hear the Minister's comments in relation to that issue. We are also concerned with access.
The amendment is in effect a declaration about the responsibility of both parents. That is important, not least because the Bill is concerned with not only those who have been married and divorced, but with those who have never been married and are still parents, and to a considerable extent with where there have been multiple relationships. Part of the problem is not simply about the relationship of the first family to the second, but in some cases to the third or fourth family, when none of these events has been subject to marriage. The declaration envisaged by the noble Lord has much in its favour. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say on that point and on the more technical aspects of the matter.
4 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 seek to place on the face of child support legislation a new framework of obligations within which a reformed child support scheme would operate, emphasising the role of both parents in raising children.
Amendment No. 3 seeks to set out in the Bill the wider responsibility that both parents have to their children beyond the immediate obligations to maintain them when the parents live apart. Amendment No. 4 extends the definition of "nonresident parent" to include those who live with the child and the other parent but who are not contributing to the children's maintenance.
We are reforming child support in the context of the Government's active family policies and the wider responsibilities of parents. As we explained in the child support Green Paper, we are convinced that one of the reasons for the failure of the existing child support arrangements is that they do not work properly with other family responsibilities. We strongly believe that fathers have a vital role to play in their children's lives and should never be marginal to a child's wellbeing.
Paying maintenance is an important part of nonresident parents' continuing responsibilities to their children, but there is more to being a good parent than this. One of the central issues for separated parents and their children is maintaining continuing contact with non-resident parents. The child support reforms set out in the Bill recognise this issue because it is in the best interests of children, for whom appropriate contact can compensate for many of the problems associated with parental separation. There is good evidence to suggest that non-resident parents who have regular contact also tend to provide more maintenance for their children.
I have seen recent research that looked at predictors of good outcomes for the children of lone parents. For daughters of lone parents a good outcome in the sense of staying on at school, doing GCSEs, not becoming pregnant as a teenager and getting a job, was that the lone parent was in work. However, for a good outcome
1216
for the sons of lone parents, in the sense of staying on at school, not truanting, not getting into trouble with the police, getting GCSEs and getting a job, the predictor was that he had regular contact with his natural father. For daughters the predictor was that the mother was in work and for sons it was if they had regular contact with their natural father. That is in accordance with what we are trying to achieve.
We all agree that children have the right to the love and care of both their parents, whether or not they live together. A point about jointly and severally has been mentioned on several occasions: under our proposals, both parents would have joint and several responsibility in that a parent with care is providing support in kind and the non-resident parent is providing support in cash. That makes up the joint and several package.
The Government are committed to an active family policy which integrates all activities that affect the family, including maintenance and contact. However, we do not accept that child support liability should be reduced or removed altogether simply because contact arrangements are unsatisfactory. Refusing to pay maintenance adds to the disadvantages of children who have lost contact with a parent.
The new system of child support will be clear and easy to understand. Non-resident parents will know immediately how much they need to pay for their children and how much they will have left to meet their other responsibilities. We will recognise children's overnight stays with non-resident parents by a small reduction in rates of liability. This will go some way to meeting the non-resident parent's expenses, without being so severe as to make parents with care resistant to shared care arrangements.
We will also support a personal, localised, face-to-face service that integrates child support with other family services. There is clearly broad support from fathers for these reforms, and it is clear that nonresident parents in particular want, more than anything else, a system of assessing liability that is simple, transparent and predictable. It is in the best interests of the child to get maintenance flowing as quickly as possible. That is what is driving our child support reforms. Where that maintenance is flowing, it is more likely that the father will seek to sustain contact.
I understand that the amendments are intended to give expression to the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, which has been reflected in the Committee today, that some children and young people do not receive enough support from their parents. I agree with that concern, but I do not think it is appropriate to make a declaratory statement in a Bill, which should be as precise in its wording as possible. The appropriate place for what one might call a mission statement, is the Green Paper or the White Paper. In quoting those extensively, the noble Lord made it clear that the Government entirely shared the context in which the reforms are put before the Committee.

1217
The noble Lord mentioned—and had support from noble Lords—the concern of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor about the issue of parental responsibility and the maintenance of 16 and 17 year-olds. The noble and learned Lord has explained that there is no specific statutory obligation on a parent to provide for the maintenance of a child who has reached the age of 16 and has offered to consider a review.
Officials in the Lord Chancellor's Department are conducting an internal review of the provisions for these young people before making recommendations about whether a wider review or a full consultation exercise is required.
I welcome the fact that in his amendment the noble Lord acknowledges that parents are not always in a position to support their children as they would wish. That is why we have set in train a wide range of initiatives, particularly where children are in care, in order to ensure that the local authority better delivers its responsibility in loco parentis. Equally, the Department for the Environment, Transport and Regions is working to reduce the incidence of homelessness and rough sleeping among young people, and the Social Exclusion Unit has published reports on teenage pregnancy in 16 to 18 year-olds who are not in education, training or employment, which the Government intend should lead to prompt and effective action, along with the Children Leaving Care Act and the Care Standards Bill, will give additional protection for these vulnerable children.
The amendments clearly go wider than that and fall outside the scope of the Bill, which in this section is concerned solely with the provisions of financial support where parents are living apart.
The noble Lord wants to reconnect maintenance and contact. We know that the men who pay most maintenance are the most reliable payers of maintenance because they tend to be older, divorced men, and more likely to be in contact with and emotionally committed to their children. The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, was absolutely right that our major problems occur with young men for whom it may have been a casual relationship, possibly a weekend relationship only, who may be unemployed and whose own lives are pretty chaotic. They are very young and may still be living at home with their parents. There, it is often the paternal grandmother who ensures that contact continues and educates her young son in his responsibilities for his child in turn. Where that happens, it can transform the young man's life.
However, as I have already suggested, the right way to sustain contact with the young man is through arrangements that are to be found in the Bill; for example, the abatement of maintenance to encourage overnight stays and the face-to-face interviews that we can offer. Equally, we are obviously concerned about the situation where the parent with care may thwart contact. The Lord Chancellor's Department is looking into the matter to ascertain what sanctions might be available where someone is in contempt of court.
1218
But those concerned are seeking to find sanctions that will not bite on the child, which is something that imprisonment might do. There is always the right available to a non-resident parent to consider a change, or to seek a change, of a residency order to ensure that contact is maintained.
I fully recognise the commitment of the noble Lord to improving the circumstances of children and young people. The Government believe that existing provisions in legislation, along with existing programmes in health, in the DETR and through the Social Exclusion Unit, further supported by the passage of this Bill, its implementation and that of the other legislation to which I referred, will provide an effective means of securing the improvements that we all wish to achieve. As the noble Lord said, the context for this was reflected in our Green and White Papers. With that explanation and bearing in mind the fact that we endorse much of what the noble Lord said, although we do not think it right to put a broader description on the face of the Bill, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Renton: Before the Minister sits down, perhaps she could explain something to me. The noble Baroness mentioned various steps and inquiries that are being undertaken within the Lord Chancellor's Department which are relevant to the noble Lord's amendment, but can she say whether the Government intend that the conclusions reached within that department, which will then be considered and approved by Ministers, will be put forward at a later stage as amendments to this Bill?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: No. This is a matter for the Lord Chancellor's Department, which, as I said, is currently conducting an internal review. That review may well lead to a wider review, which could go out to consultation. Therefore, even if it were a sensible procedure, the timetabling of all this would not be permitted. In any case, such major issues should certainly be tabled in Committee. From everything that I know about the review of my noble and learned friend's department, it may be several months before it may, or may not, see the light of day in the form of public consultation. So it would not be possible in practical terms. But, even if it were, I would argue that it would not necessarily be desirable because this is a child support Bill from the DSS; it does not seek to address the wider issues regarding the definition of "a child" and who has the responsibility for the child.
If the Lord Chancellor's Department sees fit at some point to produce clauses for an appropriate Bill, that would be another matter. However, even if it were desirable, it could not be done by way of this Bill. Indeed, even if one could, I am not yet persuaded that it would be desirable to do it through this Bill.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: The Minister gave a very careful and extremely interesting response to the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. She suggested that the noble Lord's amendment goes beyond the scope of the Bill. I can understand the problem in that respect, as I am

1219
sure is the case with the noble Lord, who will probably have more to say about it. However, the noble Baroness also said that a broad statement was not a good idea in this Bill and that it would be more appropriate for the Green and White Papers.
Following on from what I said before, surely the noble Baroness does not expect parents to have these Green and White Papers constantly in front of them. They will want to know what the Bill says; indeed, they will want to ask their legal advisers what it means. Should not the noble Baroness take away the matter and think rather hard about whether it is possible to include this kind of statement, which is within the scope of the Bill, in order to help parents understand how the provision fits in with what they consider to be their legal responsibilities? It is no good just saying that such wording is all right in the Green and White Papers. That may be so for us because we can look it up, but parents cannot be expected to have copies of all these documents.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: On the contrary. To my certain knowledge we have distributed thousands of copies, including the abbreviated versions of both the Green and White Papers. Indeed, we have received 1,500 responses, followed by many seminars and discussions. I should be most surprised if as many parents were as familiar with the context of a Bill, or of a parliamentary statute. Their solicitors might be, but they would not.
The presumption seems to be that if one makes a declaratory statement in the Bill this will somehow change behaviour and that, therefore, we should accept it in order to encourage rather feckless young men to take on their responsibilities. It is presumed that if these words were in an Act such young men would read the provision and say, "Oh goodness me! Yes, Parliament has said I must do this, therefore I will". That is not what will happen. We might feel glowing as a result, but, in practice, the young men whom we seek to encourage to take on their parental responsibilities will do so because of a series of quite precise government initiatives, including encouraging them to have the residence of the child so that they bond as early as possible and making that possible through an abatement of maintenance.
We shall also encourage young people to take on their responsibilities by working with organisations like the grandparents' organisation and, if I may put it this way, with some of the men's organisations, as well as others. I believe that the way to encourage young men to take on their responsibilities is by engaging in education in schools and by having face-to-face interviews in local offices where any problems that they have about payment can be sorted out. It is also part of our responsibility to ensure that parents with care recognise that, if they wish that maintenance to flow reliably, one of the best ways to achieve this is to ensure that contact is maintained. That will not only ensure that maintenance flows, it is also good for the child. This seems to me to be the youthful, appropriate and practical way in which young men in particular
1220
will be encouraged to face up to their responsibilities. It is not a matter of having declaratory statements on the face of a Bill, which, frankly, will have far less circulation than is the case with the White and Green Papers that I mentioned.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Renton: I am sorry to trouble the noble Baroness again, but she said that the matters raised in the noble Lord's amendment are beyond the scope of the Bill. However, the first part of the Long Title to the Bill says that its purpose is:
"To amend the law relating to child support".
That is just what the noble Lord's amendment seeks to do.
Lord Northbourne: I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Renton. He has just made the point that I intended to make. Indeed, the fact that non-financial support is, and should be, included in the concept of child support is self-evident from the Government's Green Paper on the subject.
I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for her response on this issue. Although we agree on the principles of what is desirable, I believe that we are quite far apart on the way of achieving those objectives. I personally believe that something in the nature of a declaratory statement—an aspiratory statement—should be on the face of the Bill. Indeed, without it, I think that the Bill denigrates the role of fathers, thereby creating a sense of lack of worth and, therefore, unfairness and resentment. I believe that that will motivate against the success of the Bill.
I believe that such a statement should be included in the interests of the better nurturing of children in separated families. The issues are extremely important and it is, therefore, important that the Government should at least give a balanced picture in this respect. In that context, I have to differ with the Minister that the Green and White Papers are adequate. The Green Paper leads up to the White Paper, which, in fact, says a great deal less on this issue. The White Paper then leads to the Bill, which says nothing at all about it.
The conclusion of any reasonable person is that the Government have actually dropped these ancillary considerations. The Government must do more and say what they actually believe. If the noble Baroness can tell me where and when the Government will address these matters in public in a way that will correct the imbalance implicit in the Bill, I shall be happy not to return to the amendment at further stages of the Bill. When are the Government going to say to young men, "If you get a girl pregnant, it is just as much your fault as hers"? When are they going to say to them, "To bring a child into the world when you have no intention of supporting it, caring for it or loving it, is a form of child abuse"? When are they going to say to young mothers, "Your child needs his father. If you exclude the father from his life, you're likely to be damaging your child's chances"?

1221
More simply, when are the Government going to say to schools, "Bring the fathers in to work with you and to support their child's learning. This will help boys and girls to understand the importance of a child to his father"? If the noble Baroness can convince the Committee that all this will happen soon and that it will be said loudly so that the whole country hears, I shall gladly not pursue the issue at further stages of Bill. For the time being, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Amos: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Northern Ireland: Developments
4.19 p.m.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord Falconer of Thornton): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. The Statement is as follows:
"I will, with permission, make a Statement about recent developments in Northern Ireland, and the declaration issued over the weekend by the Provisional IRA.
"On 11th February, I took the decision to suspend the political institutions which had been established barely 10 weeks earlier under the Good Friday agreement.
"I did so reluctantly, for reasons with which the House is familiar. If I had not done so, there would not only have been a collapse of the institutions, but a total collapse of confidence within unionism, from which the political process would not have been able to recover for a very long time.
"From that moment in February, we and the Irish Government have worked closely, at all levels, to restore the situation. As at so many crucial points in the past, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and the Irish Taoiseach have committed time and energy on a scale that must be unprecedented for busy heads of government. I have kept in close touch with the Irish Foreign Minister. There have been intensive discussions with the parties, in the most constructive atmosphere. I would like to thank officials in both governments whose efforts have been tireless.
"Our aim has been to achieve the clarity about the IRA's intentions which was noticeably lacking in February; by doing so to rebuild unionist confidence; and thereby to re-establish the institutions.
"This could not be done quickly. Suspension was a bruising experience for all concerned. Unionists were disappointed that expectations raised during
1222
Senator Mitchell's review were not fulfilled. Republicans, and indeed many nationalists, saw great symbolic significance in a British Secretary of State acting to suspend local institutions as I did. People of good will on all sides were saddened that arrangements which had promised so much had proved impossible to sustain.
"If unionists need the confidence that the IRA is genuinely committed to the path of peace and willing to put its arms beyond use, republicans need to know that the vision which the agreement offers, of a just and equal society in which both traditions are respected, will actually be realised.
"We and the Irish Government therefore drew up an account of the remaining steps necessary to secure the full implementation of the agreement. Details were communicated to the parties on Saturday morning. I am placing a copy in the Library.
"The two governments believe that these steps can be achieved by June 2001. In a statement published on Friday evening, we have committed ourselves to that goal.
"The two governments also called on the paramilitaries to state clearly and urgently that they will put their arms beyond use.
"For our part, we the British Government indicated that such statements would constitute a clear reduction in the security threat. In response, subject to assessment of the threat at the time, further substantial measures to normalise security arrangements will be taken by June 2001.
"I am not yet able to say what initial measures will be taken. The Chief Constable is considering in consultation with the Army the situation in the light of the IRA statement with a view to what might be done now and in the period ahead if and when the threat reduces. I assure the House, as I have done before, that the security of the public will continue to be my highest priority. There is no question of trading essential security interests for political progress. But equally there is no doubt that the statements of the kind I have described impact positively on the assessment of the threat.
"As the House will know, the IRA made such a statement on Saturday afternoon. In the context of the governments implementing what they have agreed, the IRA committed itself to,
'a process that will completely and verifiably put arms beyond use'.
"That is not maybe, not might, but will. It went on:
'We will do it in such a way as to avoid risk to the public and misappropriation by others and ensure maximum confidence'.
"In the same context, the IRA committed itself to,
'pursue our respective political objectives peacefully'.
"The statement further committed the IRA to resume contact with the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning, under General

1223
John de Chastelain. It noted that the IRA's arms are `silent and secure', and that there is no threat to the peace process from the IRA.
"In addition, the statement committed the IRA to put in place within weeks a confidence-building measure to confirm that its weapons remain secure. Independent inspectors will scrutinise a number of arms dumps and report to the de Chastelain commission. It will be an ongoing process, with regular re-inspections.
"It is important that we now hear, in similar terms, from the main loyalist organisations.
"Since the IRA made its statement, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach have announced that Mr Martti Ahtisaari, the former President of Finland, and Mr Cyril Ramaphosa, the former Secretary General of the African National Congress and now a prominent businessman in South Africa, both widely respected international figures, have agreed to head the inspections. I am pleased to be able to announce that they will pay their first visit to Belfast next Monday, and I am grateful to them for their speedy response at such short notice.
"I regard the IRA statement as a very significant development.
"For the first time, there is a commitment to put weapons completely and verifiably beyond use, in a context which is realistic rather than simply aspirational. There is a real prospect of actually achieving decommissioning—no longer just talking about it, or setting conditions for it which make its realisation less likely.
"There is a more clear-cut assurance of the IRA's peaceful intentions than we have ever heard before. And, as an earnest of these intentions, there is an unprecedented willingness to allow independent third parties to inspect arms dumps containing weapons, explosives and detonators and vouch for their continuing security. An essential element of the scheme is that the process should be continuous, to provide reassurance that dumps have not been tampered with, and weapons have not been removed, between inspections.
"The right honourable Member for Upper Bann has acknowledged the significance of the IRA statement, and the fact that it appears to break new ground. Not surprisingly, he wishes to examine it carefully, and weigh its implications.
"That is entirely understandable. He will also want to be confident, as I will, that in moving forward with the agreement, the traditions and concerns of the unionist people will be respected and dealt with sensitively, just as much as the traditions and concerns of nationalists.
"I believe that all friends and supporters of responsible forward-looking unionism will conclude that the proposals I have outlined today, buttressed by the weekend's statement by the IRA, provide the conditions on which he can lead his party back into government.
1224
"On the basis of such a positive response to these proposals, not only from his party but all the proagreement parties, I can confirm to the House that I will bring forward the necessary order to restore the Northern Ireland Assembly and its Executive by 22nd May.
"In this event, I feel hopeful and confident that the ultimate prize—stable, inclusive government in Northern Ireland and an unbreakable peace—will at long last be within our grasp".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.28 p.m.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made by the Secretary of State in another place. I am particularly pleased at the possibility that once again we shall be able to restore democracy to Northern Ireland and that the Executive will be reinstated. It was suspended by the Secretary of State with the full agreement and support of my party. I believe that without that action we would not be where we are today with the kind of opportunities that are now ahead of us.
Although I welcome the IRA's commitment to,
'a process that will completely and verifiably put arms beyond use',
I have to be a little cynical. However, this appears to be a step forward. It does indeed appear to go a step further than the IRA has ever gone before. That gives us hope. I should also like to make the point that the so-called loyalist paramilitaries are notably silent. I hope that they will come to the table soon.
However—rather cynically again, perhaps—I believe that we are observing a life-and-death game being played by some of the best spinners in the world on a very sticky wicket. As an Ulsterman, while sincerely hoping that we are watching the end game which will terminate in peace and good will for everyone, I do not believe that life in Northern Ireland is like that. I still need and have to ask for reassurances. I have a number of questions that I should like the Minister to answer.
While welcoming arms and Semtex being put beyond use, how can the Secretary of State guarantee that they will never be used again? That is a serious process. The Sinn Fein Statement refers only to a number of arms dumps being open for inspection. What percentage of the IRA's total armoury will this represent? What is the follow up for the remainder?
Can the Minister again reassure the House that, despite any agreements made recently between the Prime Minister and the Taioseach—I know that this is in the Secretary of State's statement—the process of security normalisation will continue to take into account the threat, as advised by the Chief Constable and the GOC, and that security reductions will not take place for political reasons?
What will constitute a default by the IRA? In the case of an IRA default, what action is the Secretary of State prepared to take? Will the Minister confirm that in the event of a default he will not hesitate to suspend the institutions once again?

1225
The Unionist Party will require answers to these questions. It may not be clearly understood by all of the population of this country, but we are talking about confidence and trust that has been shattered, shattered and shattered again over the past number of years.
The IRA statement refers once again to this process being about removing the causes of conflict—by which it means partition and the British presence. Will the Minister confirm that the acceptance of the Good Friday agreement means accepting the legitimacy of Northern Ireland's position as part of the United Kingdom, and that there can be absolutely no question of that changing without the consent of the people?
Finally, the road to a Northern Ireland settlement has been long and hard. We are still moving—and we are still moving forward—thanks to a great deal of hard work and the patience of many, many people. But no one should be surprised if there are many, many more miles and late nights to go. However, we on this side sincerely hope that the statement from the IRA and this Statement from the Government mean that the future for Belfast and the people of Northern Ireland once again looks as though it might return to normality, and that the people there will be encouraged and morale raised.
4.33 p.m.
Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, for repeating the Statement made by the Secretary of State earlier today in another place. I apologise for not being here at the beginning of his speech.
Potentially, the Statement provides the greatest cause for optimism since the Good Friday agreement itself that real progress can now be made in achieving a lasting peace in Northern Ireland. It offers a welcome reprieve from the two steps forward, one step back fandango that has exasperatingly characterised the process over the past two years. The prospects for agreement outlined in the Statement mean, it is to be hoped, that the iron law of history, which has scuppered hitherto all initiatives for peace, is itself about to be sundered. Let us hope and pray that such proves to be the case.
Much of the credit must go to the leaders of the pro-agreement parties. They have worked extremely well during the time since the suspension of the Assembly and the Executive. Most importantly, Sinn Fein has responded to the needs of the situation, which became very acute following the reimposition of direct rule. From all sides of your Lordships' House and beyond went the call for a positive move on arms by the IRA, and Sinn Fein appears to have achieved that. The IRA assurance that its ordnance is no longer to be used for violence and that its neutralising is to be regularly verified by respected international authorities is welcome, if overdue. We on these Benches salute the maturity and skill shown by the three largest pro-agreement political parties during the difficult period since the suspension of the Assembly.
1226
We are grateful also for the efforts made by successive Secretaries of State, all of which have contributed to this apparent breakthrough. The present Secretary of State, Mr Peter Mandelson, has clearly brought his special expertise to the problems raised in the aftermath of suspending the fledgling Assembly. It was a fearful gamble which he has pulled off; he deserves our congratulations. We hope, too, that other paramilitary organisations will respond positively to this IRA statement. But much still needs to be done in the case of Northern Ireland. I hope that the rumours are wrong and that Mr Mandelson is not soon to be reshuffled.
While peace is a necessary prerequisite, the real goal is to see the establishment of authentic, democratic politics in Northern Ireland. The substance of the Statement makes that a real possibility, which all of those who have Northern Ireland's best interests at heart must pray for. The opportunity must be seized. We trust that the forthcoming meeting of the Ulster Unionist Council will support Mr Trimble in the stance that he has taken. I should like to ask the Minister whether he has any information in regard to other paramilitary organisations following suit.
4.37 p.m.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am grateful for the general tone of the statements made by noble Lords from the two Opposition Front Benches; for their recognition of the potential significance of what has happened; and for echoing the remarks of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State in another place that it is important that we now hear in similar terms from the main loyalist organisations.
Perhaps I may deal with a number of the questions raised in the course of the noble Lords' remarks. How can we be sure that the weapons will never be used again? The significance of the Statement is that the IRA leadership has said that it will initiate a process that will completely and verifiably put IRA arms beyond use. So it is committing itself to putting IRA arms beyond use. How that will be done technically is a matter for discussion between the IRA and the decommissioning commission. The IRA also states in its statement that it will resume contact with the Independent International Commission on decommissioning and enter into further discussions with the commission on the basis of the IRA leadership's commitment to resolving the issue of arms. So how it will be done—the technicalities and modalities of it—is a matter to be discussed with the decommissioning commission. What percentage is envisaged? It is envisaged by the commitment that the IRA's arms will be put beyond use.
The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, wished me to emphasise that decisions about security are to be made on the basis of the threat that exists at any one moment and not on the basis of trading security measures against political process. I am happy to give him that assurance. As he rightly said, that assurance was given in my right honourable friend's Statement in another place. There is no question of trading essential security interests for political progress.

1227
I was asked what the position would be if there was default by the IRA. Under the statement there is a commitment by the IRA to decommissioning coupled with a commitment to the confidence-building measure of allowing an independent inspection, repeated by regular verifying inspections, of arms dumps. That is the commitment that must be looked at. Let us hope that that is what the IRA does. It would be unwise to say what the consequences of not doing it would be. Let us look to the future. The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, asked me to reiterate that the Good Friday agreement depends on the principle of consent. Of course I reiterate that.
I think that I have dealt with all of the questions raised by noble Lords on the Front Benches.
4.40 p.m.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, given that the Belfast agreement committed all of the participants to exclusively peaceful means, how do Her Majesty's Government regard this morning's announcement by Mr Adams that his IRA standing army will be retained in perpetuity? Why should a political party in government in Northern Ireland need a standing army? With that goes the fact that some of the IRA's weapons will be stored and protected. Only some, because the Statement itself says that only a number of the dumps will be inspected. Lastly, how do Her Majesty's Government justify that glaring betrayal of those who supported the Belfast agreement, not least Mr Trimble and his colleagues?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the IRA statement contains two things: first, an unequivocal commitment to decommissioning; and, separately from that, there is a commitment to a confidence-building measure; namely, the inspection of the arms dumps by the independent observers, Mr Ahtisaari and Mr Ramaphosa. Those are two separate things. It is not being suggested that the inspection of the arms dumps is the decommissioning. That is a confidence-building measure. What is significant, apart from that confidence-building measure, is the commitment itself to decommissioning, something we have not heard before from the IRA, as was recognised by the noble Lords, Lord Glentoran and Lord Smith.
As to the statement made by Mr Adams, to which the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, referred, unfortunately, I do not know of that specific statement and so I am not in a position to make any comment on it. What is clear from the IRA's statement is that it will initiate a process that will completely and verifiably put IRA arms beyond use. That is a significant step forward.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I congratulate the Government on having got this far, even though there are still hurdles ahead, and I wish David Trimble and John Taylor good luck in the coming days. David Trimble will have to draw again on his reserves of courage and tenacity to see him through the next stage of this important process. Can my noble and learned
1228
friend say anything about paramilitary attacks, whether carried out by loyalists or republicans, which have been a scourge on Northern Ireland? I very much hope that the agreement, when implemented, will see an end to these deplorable attacks, which have caused so much pain and suffering to many people there.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his remarks about where we have reached. I share with him the recognition that there are many hurdles ahead. I deplore with him the paramilitary attacks. I very much hope that the effect of the statement and the developments over the weekend will lead to a reduction in the number of paramilitary attacks.
Lord Renton: My Lords, in recent years the Government of the Republic of Ireland have played a valuable part in helping the United Kingdom Government to achieve peace in Northern Ireland. Can the noble and learned Lord confirm that on this occasion too the Government of the Republic have played a valuable part?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I most certainly can. As the Statement made in another place revealed, it was the governments jointly setting out what they thought were the necessary steps to implement the Good Friday agreement that was the start of this recent stage in the peace process.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord accept that, as someone who for 25 years was involved in counter-terrorist operations on three different continents, no one wishes more than I do to see this peace process succeed? But will he also accept that it would be very unwise to place too much credence on the unequivocal assurances of terrorist organisations? That way may lie disaster.
Perhaps I may repeat three of the questions which have been raised in your Lordships' House today but which will need answers that will satisfy not only the unionists in Northern Ireland but most of the population of the country whose lives are at risk as much as anyone else's from the operations of the terrorists. First, do we know that all the IRA arms are in the dumps that are being opened to inspection, or are there other dumps with weapons in them that will not be seen? Secondly, is there any way in which it is intended that these weapons should be immobilised, by removing such things as firing pins and fuses, so that they could not be used even if they were removed from the dumps? Finally, how will the dumps be guarded so that if people change their minds about the unequivocal assurances they cannot descend on the dumps, remove the weapons and use them? I do not ask the noble and learned Lord to answer those questions today but can he at least give an assurance that the Government will demand unequivocal and satisfactory answers to those questions before they carry this process any further?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, perhaps I make clear what the effect of the IRA statement is. It is an unequivocal commitment verifiably to put beyond use the IRA's arms. That is the unequivocal commitment to decommissioning. Separately from that, as a confidence-building measure, is agreeing that the two independent observers should be given access to inspect weapons dumps and that they should thereafter be able to inspect them regularly. It is not being suggested that the inspection of the weapons dumps constitutes the decommissioning, but it is a measure designed to build confidence in the process. There are two separate things in this statement, both of which represent a significant way forward. In order to deal with the commitment to decommission, there has to be a verifiable way in which the arms are put beyond use. That is what the IRA committed itself to in the statement. How that is done is a matter to be determined between the IRA and the decommissioning commission.
Lord Jopling: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord explain what appears to be a contradiction in the Statement? He began by telling us that there was an unequivocal undertaking to put the arms beyond use. Then he went on to say that there would be continuing inspection of the arms dumps to ensure that none of the weapons was removed. If they are beyond use, what would be the purpose of removing them?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I obviously have not made my position adequately clear. The statement from the IRA is saying that it is giving two separate things. The first is an unequivocal assurance to put its arms beyond use; in effect, an unequivocal commitment to decommissioning. Separately from that, as a confidence-building measure, it is agreeing to the inspection of arms dumps by independent inspectors. It is not suggesting that that equals decommissioning. It is simply a confidence-building measure so that the process can begin and people can have confidence in it. We are not suggesting for one moment that the inspection process of the arms dumps equals decommissioning. It is being put forward as a confidence-building measure.
Lord Blease: My Lords, I am very pleased, indeed grateful, for the way in which the Opposition Benches have accepted the Statement. The approach is constructive and offers hope for the measures that lie ahead. I believe that the Statement makes it possible to achieve honest and effective working relationships in Northern Ireland and to promote measures to achieve honourable, just and lasting democratic political institutions which will bring about effective government in the Province.
I should like to comment on one reference in the Statement. It is most reassuring that the Secretary of State made this point; he was aware of how people would feel. He states,
I assure the House, as I have done before, that the security of the public will continue to be my highest priority. There is no question of trading essential security interests for political progress'.
1230
Those are the most potent lines in the Statement. I look forward to enjoying the days ahead when people will work together to meet the need of the people in Northern Ireland for hospitals, work and the care of children. Those essential matters have been neglected for so long.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his support for the Statement. I thank him also for drawing attention to a very important part of it.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, the Minister has been extremely patient while being pushed on a particular point. However, the worry about the phrase "beyond use" is not merely semantic; it relates to the realities. Is it synonymous with being prepared to destroy the weapons or with being prepared, under whatever supervision, to destroy them or surrender them to some other body? Presumably, "beyond use" can equally mean one of those two things: either the weapons are surrendered, on whatever terms the IRA is prepared to accept, to some other body of its choice or to an agreed body; or alternatively, they are destroyed. The phrase "beyond use" worries a number of us. It seems to have some hidden definition, probably known only to the IRA and Ministers.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, as I have said, the IRA has made a clear and unequivocal commitment to put arms completely and verifiably beyond use. That is what the decommissioning Act required. The Act states that arms must be destroyed or made permanently inaccessible or unusable. The IRA has said that that is what it will do. I do not think that there is any sinister meaning as suggested by the noble Lord.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, during the first 10 years of the 30-year problem in Northern Ireland, the Army were in charge of security; the RUC was swamped. From 1978, and increasingly, the Chief Constable and the RUC have been in charge of security. Given the announcement made by my noble friend about the role of the two prominent figures from outside the country, what role will the Chief Constable play? Will he be brought into all discussions? He is the one to decide whether he is satisfied with the security arrangements.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, as I hope the Statement makes clear, it is for the Chief Constable to make the security assessment. Perhaps I may repeat, because it is extremely important, that there is no question of trading essential security interests for political progress. The question of what level of security is required is to be made entirely on the basis of the threat. As has been made clear, if the situation changes in terms of the peace process, that might have an effect on security decisions; but ultimately., it is for the Chief Constable, in consultation with the security forces, to determine the level of threat and make appropriate arrangements.

1231
Perhaps I may take up the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Marsh. I am told that the phrase used in the decommissioning Act is "beyond use", the same as that used in the IRA statement.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, the fact that the statement made by the IRA is one of the clearest that it has made for a number of years has to be seen as a good sign. IRA statements in the past have been criticised for the nature of the semantics used; that is why this statement has to be seen as a good sign.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his comment. There is no doubt that this statement is very significant indeed.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, in the negotiations that took place behind the scenes before the issuing of this statement, was any pressure used on the IRA as an organisation to show its bona fides in this area? From now until June next year, will it stop the knee-capping and the murderous attacks on individuals? The IRA has said in its statement that its arms are silent and secure. Tell that to young people in Northern Ireland among whom there are almost daily knee-cappings. The IRA has said that it wants to build confidence. Will the Minister suggest to it that the best way to build confidence in Northern Ireland is to take steps to prevent such murderous attacks? Will the Minister put a suggestion to the IRA? If it intends finally to decommission by June next year, in the run-up between now and then are we to accept that the IRA and loyalist paramilitaries will be able to carry out such attacks on civilians? Would it be possible after 22nd May, when the institutions are brought back into being, for the IRA to reciprocate by, for example, putting Semtex out of its control? That would build confidence within the unionist community that the IRA means what it says.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, as I said in answer to my noble friend Lord Dubs, we deplore all paramilitary attacks of whatever sort. We very much hope that they will be reduced as a result of what has happened in the past few weeks.
As I have indicated, the commitment made in the IRA statement is unequivocally to put weapons beyond use. How precisely it is to be done is a matter for discussion between the IRA and the decommissioning commission.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord has emphasised two different points over and again: first, the confidence-building measure—namely, the inspections; and secondly, decommissioning. As I understand the timetable announced in the Statement, the date given being 22nd May, it is unlikely, to say the least, that any decommissioning per se will happen before that date.
1232
Confidence-building measures would have to include inspections over the border in the Irish Republic as well as in the North. Otherwise, I doubt that they will provide the confidence that the noble and learned Lord and indeed I would like.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the commitment in relation to the confidence-building measure is in respect of inspection by the two named people of existing arms dumps. Where that inspection takes place depends on where the dumps are. I should have thought that they are most likely to be in the South.
Lord Laird: My Lords, I am one of those who believe that there has been a limited move forward in the exercise over the weekend. However, I endorse much of what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, and others. I am one of those who, together with a number of other Members of this House, will be making the decision, as part of the Ulster Unionist Council, about Ulster Unionist participation in the Executive. I should like the Minister to be aware that there is not yet sufficient clarification. The answers given today have not clarified much. I should like the Minister to explain what exactly is meant by the word "some"—the phrase "some dumps" is used. We have not received clarification on that extremely important point.
There also seems to be confusion over part of the Statement and the answers given as to whether this is a question of "beyond use" or "decommissioning". The point requires clarification. These are the kinds of issues that we must sort out. Last year the Ulster Unionists bought a second-hand car which did not start. We shall be much more careful next time we buy a second-hand car from the same dealer. I believe that people expect us to do nothing less.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, we understand that the confidence-building measure will involve arms in three dumps which most likely will be in the South. The dumps will contain a substantial amount of weapons, explosives and detonators. There is no suggestion that these are all the dumps, because this is a confidence-building measure. Those dumps will be inspected by the named independent third parties who will then report to the commission on decommissioning.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I speak as an unrepentant, unqualified admirer of the Government's initiative in the peace process. I also congratulate Mr Mandelson in particular on this occasion. Does the noble and learned Lord agree it is inconceivable that the IRA will give up all of its arms without any response from the Protestant paramilitaries? What steps are being taken to ensure that there is some response on that side?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I reiterate what has been said on all sides. In the light of what has been said by the IRA, it is important that we now hear in similar terms from the main loyalist organisations. The peace process depends as much on that as anything else.

Sierra Leone
5.1 p.m.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement on Sierra Leone which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary. The Statement is as follows:
"Over the past week RUF rebels have broken heir commitment to the Lomé Peace Agreement and returned to conflict. They have made a number of attacks on the UN forces and on demobilisation camps. At least four Kenyan members of the UN forces have been killed in action. Around 500 UN personnel have been detained, including one British IJN military observer.
"At the weekend the rebels appeared to be moving on Freetown. The situation in Freetown is tense. I spoke at midday to our High Commissioner there who reported that the police had been successful in arresting a number of rebel bands and seizing arms which they had been about to distribute.
"Tens of thousands of residents of Freetown loyal to President Kabbah have today marched on the residence of the rebel leader, Foday Sankoh, which they have surrounded. From about one o'clock this afternoon the sound of gunfire could be heard from that location. This development has serious implications for the security situation within Freetown and the future actions of rebel forces commanded by Foday Sankoh.
"Our first duty is to protect the lives of British citizens in Sierra Leone and others to whom we have consular responsibility. We believe that there are up to 500 British nationals in Sierra Leone, mostly in the Freetown area. There is a smaller number of European Union and Commonwealth nationals without diplomatic representation for whom we have consular responsibility.
"Our immediate advice to British residents in Freetown is to stay indoors. This afternoon the High Commission has activated its evacuation plan and is contacting British residents through the local warden network to give them the necessary instructions.
"In view of the limited commercial opportunities to leave Sierra Leone and the current insecurity, we have taken the precautionary measure to deploy a number of British military assets to West Africa.
"The forward elements of the current spearhead battalion, the 1st Battalion Parachute Regiment, arrived in Dakar, Senegal, over the weekend. The battalion is currently moving from Dakar to Freetown. In addition, HMS "Ocean" and support
1234
vessels, with 42 Commando and a number of helicopters, are moving towards the region and will be in Sierra Leone early next week. HMS "Illustrious" has been withdrawn from NATO exercises to be used if needed.
"These measures have been taken to ensure that we are best placed to respond quickly to safeguard the security of British nationals. Our forces will ensure the security of Sierra Leone's international airport. This is not only of immediate utility for the evacuation, but is also valuable in allowing the UN forces to continue to build up.
"The UN force is currently about 3,000 short of its mandated strength of over 11,000. We are urging the nations contributing to the UN force to expedite the additional numbers. I spoke last night to Madeleine Albright, and I welcome the US offer to consider a strategic airlift to fly in units from the Jordanian and Bangladeshi armies.
"I have also spoken to Kofi Annan, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, and offered further logistical support, such as vehicles, for the UN force. I pressed upon him that one of the immediate lessons of the past few days is that nations contributing forces to the UN must also contribute the equipment necessary to fulfil their mandate.
"My right honourable friend the Prime Minister has just spoken to President Obasanjo of Nigeria, the major regional state, to discuss what immediate assistance Nigeria can contribute to the UN forces.
"The responsibility for the current outbreak of violence lies squarely with the RUF rebels and their leader Forday Sankoh. A year ago he committed himself to a peace process which offered rehabilitation and retraining to his troops in exchange for demilitarisation. Considerable progress had been made on that process. UN forces had deployed across two-thirds of the country, almost half the armed groups had registered at demobilisation centres and a significant quantity of weapons had been surrendered. Work had begun on training a new defence force for the legitimate Government of Sierra Leone and on preparations for democratic elections next year. All that progress has been put at risk by the RUF reneging on the commitments that it made.
"One of the triggers of the current conflict appears to have been the attempt by the UN forces to enter the diamond-producing region which is held by the RUF and provides it with weapons and friends. This development underlines the importance of the international debate, in winch Britain has been a leading voice, for more transparent regulation of the trade in uncut diamonds. We should not allow diamonds to be sold for weapons or at the cost of lives.
"I want to make it clear to the House and to the people of Sierra Leone that Britain will not abandon its commitment to that country. Britain has done more than any other country outside the region to restore legitimate government in Sierra Leone. We are the largest national donor to the peace process.

1235
We hosted the international donors' conference earlier this year and we are in the lead in training the new army for the Government of Sierra Leone. We shall continue to take the lead at the UN and elsewhere to restore the peace process. We must not allow a few thousand rebels to prevent the end to violence and the peace in which to get on with their lives, for which the 3 million people of Sierra Leone desperately hunger".
My Lords, That concludes the Statement.
5.7 p.m.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement and updating the House on what is clearly a very serious situation. We welcome and support the sensible and appropriate measures that are being taken to prepare for any evacuation of British and other nationals. The force that has been assembled for this purpose—one-and-a-half, or perhaps two, battalions and five ships—appears to be quite a large one. I am mildly surprised that there are still 500 British nationals in Freetown and surrounding areas when everyone, including the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, knows what a dangerous place it has become and how the rule of law has evaporated in many parts of that unhappy, and pathetically poor, country. But if that is what is necessary to get people out safely, it has our full support.
I should like to put a number of questions. First, can the Minister reassure the House that this large force is solely for evacuation and rescue? Can the noble Baroness elaborate on the words "further logistical support"? The House needs to be reassured that this is not the beginning of an entanglement, by a side door as it were, in the whole UN operation that is in difficulties. If evacuation is the purpose, could that be made absolutely clear? When does it begin? We gather that some military units have already been ashore for a day or two in Freetown. What is their aim beyond securing the airport? How long does the Minister think that it will all take?
On the broader scene, the UN operation was supposed to be a showpiece. People were saying that if we cannot get it right in Sierra Leone all hope is lost in Africa, and such words. We should now like to know where the UN operation is heading. At the moment the direction appears to be downwards. What line are Her Majesty's Government taking at the United Nations in support of pulling the operation together? At present, the operation looks in extremely bad shape.
Has the Minister a view, first, on the reports of huge illegal arms shipments going in through Burkina Faso to the rebels to the general chaos of the country? Secondly—my question relates to an issue raised many times by my noble friend on another crisis in Africa, Zimbabwe—has the Commonwealth a role? It is a Commonwealth country. It is part of the Commonwealth scene. I should like to believe that the Commonwealth has a positive role but I have heard nothing of that from the Government.
5.12 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made in another place. Perhaps I may also express our strong support for the very bold action taken by the Foreign Office to protect the interests and lives of British citizens and others in Sierra Leone for whom we have consular responsibility. I should be grateful if we could express the sympathy of the House for those UN peacekeepers who have lost their lives, many from Commonwealth countries which responded to the request from the Secretary-General to send troops to Sierra Leone.
It seems clear that the betrayal by Foday Sankoh of the peace agreement reached only a few months ago—he was invited into the government in exchange for cooperating on the restructuring of the security forces and the retraining of the army—has been a betrayal not only of his own people but of all the people of Sierra Leone. I hope that the Minister can assure us that we shall not pursue further any attempt to negotiate with a man of such evident false standing.
Perhaps I may ask three questions. The first concerns where our responsibilities begin and end. In the Statement the noble Baroness mentioned that we have consular responsibilities beyond those to British citizens. Perhaps she can enlighten us a little further. Can she also enlighten us on the position we would take if UN peacekeepers close to British forces, in a situation of danger to themselves, were to plead for our assistance to rescue them from, for example, hostage situations?
The second question concerns the position of the diamond trade in this continuing bitter civil war. It is notable that exactly the same has been true in Angola for an equally long time. Can the Minister tell us—she was able to do so with regard to Angola—what steps the British Government are taking to identify rough diamonds and in particular to strengthen the sanctions with regard to trade in Antwerp and other traditional diamond centres which appear not to be upholding the sanctions as much as they should?
Finally—it is the only critical note I have—should we reconsider the link between armies being made available and equipment? Clearly a country such as Bangladesh has no heavy-lift equipment and can get the troops who are so welcome to support the UN effort in Sierra Leone only if equipment is made available. The Minister will be well aware that one of the major UN members, the United States, is almost invariably reluctant to send troops but happy to offer heavy-lift and other essential equipment.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I endorse entirely the expressions of sympathy offered in relation to this sad situation. I can reassure the noble Lord that evacuation and rescue is the focus for Her Majesty's Government's intervention—the security of those individuals, the British and those others for whom we are responsible. In reply to the noble Baroness's point, we are responsible for our own British nationals but we

1237
have also accepted responsibility in consular terms for EU, US and Commonwealth citizens who may also be there. It is not simply our 500 for whom we express real anxiety.
Our first move must be to secure the airport. It is a central point. I believe that the evacuation of certain British nationals may have started as we speak. That situation is developing rapidly on the ground. Our High Commissioner there will be liaising directly with the other authorities to keep a close eye on that dangerous situation.
I was asked where the UN operation was heading. Noble Lords will know well that this UN operation was put in place as perhaps the most helpful effort in the past 10 years finally to bring security and sanity to this area of the world. It is regrettable that the force—it should have been over 11,000—was only 8,000. We are doing all we can to encourage those involved to send the personnel and equipment as quickly as possible.
I endorse what has been said about the behaviour of the leader, Foday Sankoh. Much trust was placed in him—most importantly, the trust of the Sierra Leone people. The new government was to be a positive way forward. All of us hoped that it could and would be achieved.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, says, diamonds are a matter of great importance. I understand that my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary is today considering further measures that we can take with our EU partners in relation to diamonds and may be making comments in that regard as I speak but which I am unable to voice fully in this House at this moment.
On arms, we shall consider carefully these issues. I hope that noble Lords will understand that security of our Armed Forces and those currently in Sierra Leone is the most important issue at this time. I am unable to disclose to your Lordships the details in relation to those matters.
5.17 p.m.
Lord Shore of Stepney: My Lords, I thank the Minister for the Statement. It is particularly welcome news that the Prime Minister is in touch with the Prime Minister of Nigeria and that we have taken such apt precautionary measures at the seizure of the Freeport airfield. I welcome all that. I am sure the Government are right in taking action, as all governments must do, to protect their own nationals when they are in danger.
However, I worry whether that is enough. I do not say that we should do more individually as a country, but it is a terrible humiliation of and rebuff for the United Nations. The United Nations is the only, last, best hope for peace at the beginning of this century. Should we not at least bring together the Security Council for immediate and urgent consideration of the further measures needed to restore the authority, status and reputation of the UN?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I wholeheartedly agree with my noble friend that this is
1238
a rebuff; and it is a matter that we must all take increasingly seriously. I cannot say whether it would be right, at this moment, to call for a meeting of the Security Council but I can assure your Lordships that every possible way forward is being actively considered. Nothing is being left out.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, can the Minister say anything about the joint UN/RUF mission which was supposed to locate and, if possible, rescue the UN hostages? The noble Baroness told the House that the British troops being sent to Freetown will not have responsibility for rescuing the UN troops who are being held hostage. If the mission is unsuccessful, what fall-back plans does the United Nations have—was this issue discussed yesterday at the Security Council? —for rescuing the 500 people now detained by the RUF?
What information do the Government have on the allegations of a coup, which was supposed to be launched today, and the arrest of senior RUF personnel, who were alleged to be responsible for it, by troops loyal to the AFRC in Freetown? Have charges been laid against Mr Mike Lamin or others alleged to have been involved in the coup? Do the Government consider that the remit of UNAMSIL was sufficiently clear in that, although SCR1289 required them to provide security, to enable people to move freely and to co-ordinate with the Sierra Leone authorities on the administration of law and order, there is no specific mention in the UN resolution of how they are supposed to respond if they come under fire? Is it the task of UNAMSIL to neutralise any group which fails to honour the peace agreement? If so, is it nor essential that UNAMSIL detachments which find themselves under fire should be able to call for rapid reinforcements from the rest of UN forces in the territory and that they should have the logistics to enable them to do so?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, understand the noble Lord's anxiety and h:s hunger for in-depth information. I hope that he will understand the limits currently placed on any disclosures I can make as regards precisely what is happening on the ground. We must do nothing to exacerbate or inflame the situation.
Our troops are on their way and we shall know more once we have people on the ground. Their main task is to bring out citizens safely. The situation is rapidly changing and I am sure that the noble Lord knows that UNAMSIL has a broad mandate. It certainly has a mandate to keep its own security as a priority, but this is a fluid and rapidly changing situation. It is perhaps best at this stage for us to respond moderately and to wait to see what we discover in detail on the ground.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, what consultations have the British Government had with our European partners? After all, one of the contexts of the European defence initiative has been that the operation one might envisage for the new battle

1239
reaction force would be to help to prop up collapsing states. Therefore, it seems entirely appropriate that consultations should have taken place.
Furthermore, can the Minister confirm that British interests in Sierra Leone are not simply those of rescuing British nationals? As a permanent member of the UN Security Council, a position which the Conservative Party among others is strongly committed to Britain retaining, we have a strong interest in maintaining the authority of the United Nations and, thus, in ensuring that the UN does not fail in its commitment to Sierra Leone.
Can the Minister also comment on the refugee issue? We in this country have learnt bitterly that when states collapse in Africa some of their desperate refugees turn up, legally or illegally, within the EU. We have a substantial Somali community in London and elsewhere in Britain which was not here 10 years ago. I am not sure how they got here, but somehow they did. That confirms that it is greatly in Britain's interest to ensure that Sierra Leone does not collapse as a state.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I agree with the import of the anxieties expressed by the noble Lord. We are consulting our EU partners in relation to what is happening in Sierra Leone. It has been agreed that we should take the brunt of the rescue mission, which is why we and our forces are going in to rescue British, EU and Commonwealth nationals from the situation. We are going in not only to do that, but to try to maintain the authority of the UN. The noble Lord is right in pointing that out, but at this stage our primary focus must be to secure the situation and rescue the nationals for whom we have accepted responsibility.
We have a continuing commitment to Sierra Leone and we have tried to make that clear. Once the nationals have been removed, we shall participate and encourage a reconstruction in terms of how Sierra Leone works. The refugee situation will be another complex issue with which we shall have to deal and it is with great energy that we shall try to address our minds to any fall-out that may come from that. However, it is a rapidly developing situation and we are communicating with all our partners to try to get a focused and cohesive response to the difficulty.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, bearing in mind the complaints that radio equipment did not work for our troops in Kosovo and that the rifles with which our infantry were supplied needed to be modified, can the Minister assure the House that the troops whom we have sent to West Africa have a suitable supply of radio equipment that works and additional equipment which they can lend to UN troops already there so that they can communicate with them? Furthermore, will she assure the House that the troops who have already left have properly modified weapons?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I can reassure the noble Lord that the officers and men and
1240
women whom we have sent are appropriately equipped for the task with which they must deal. We understand that that task will be complex.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 5.30 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 5.26 to 5.30 p.m.]

Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill
5.30 p.m.
House again in Committee.
[Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 not moved.]
Clause 1 [Maintenance calculations and terminology]:
Lord Higginsmoved Amendment No. 6:
Page 2, line 11. leave out ("one month") and insert ("two months").
The noble Lord said: Before we adjourned for the Statements, we were discussing matters of enormous and wide-ranging importance with regard to social security policy. Amendment No. 6 is at the other end of the spectrum, both politically and technically. It seeks merely to increase a time limit in the Bill from one to two months.
Under the Bill, the parent with care has one month in which to respond to a letter telling her that the Secretary of State intends to cease dealing with an application. If she does not want it to stop, she may be considered a voluntary client of the agency without further application. If the parent with care misses the one-month time limit, she can apply for maintenance later and the agency will pursue the non-resident parent from the current date.
With our passionate desire to improve the Bill, I believe that this amendment would be suitable because we know that, one way or another, communications may well be prolonged. Two things may happen if the individual concerned is not aware of the situation within a month: first, there will be further delay while the process that I have just described continues and eventually is concluded; and, secondly, if she goes through those lengthier proceedings, she may lose some degree of maintenance because it is calculated from the date when the new procedure is concluded rather than when she writes rapidly saying that she wants the Secretary of State to go ahead. I hope that the Minister will consider the proposal to be an improvement rather than otherwise. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: As clearly explained by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, this amendment increases the time limit within which a parent with care must notify the CSA if she wants to continue as a voluntary client when she leaves benefit before a maintenance calculation is made.

1241
Clause 1 provides the basis for maintenance calculations. It substitutes a new Section 11 dealing with the rules for maintenance calculations in the 1991 Act. New Section 11 (subsections (3) to (5)) requires the Secretary of State to stop acting on an application for child support treated as made under Section 6(3) if he becomes aware that the parent with care has left benefit before the maintenance calculation has been made.
The treating of an application for child support "as made" when a claim for benefit is made streamlines the way in which parents with care who claim or receive benefit apply for child support. It will ensure that parents with care who claim income support or income-based jobseeker's allowance receive a seamless maintenance service at the same time.
Under the current scheme, a parent with care who claims income support or income-based JSA can be required to authorise the Secretary of State to take action to recover child maintenance. She is not required to do so if there are reasonable grounds to believe that there would be a risk that she, or any child living with her, would suffer harm or undue distress. This is known as "good cause". However, child support arrangements can be made only after a formal application for maintenance has been made.
In the reformed child support scheme, only those parents who need to will take action to opt out of making a claim for child support. That will ensure easy access to the new system which will provide a regular and reliable flow of maintenance and a better service for parents.
However, if a parent with care, who has had an application for maintenance treated as made under Section 6(3), leaves benefit before the maintenance calculation is made, she can instead ask the agency to treat her application as voluntary under Section 4 of the 1991 Act. Action to pursue child maintenance would otherwise cease in those cases. If there is no court order or pre-1993 written maintenance agreement in place to prevent that, the Secretary of State can then continue the process of determining child support liability. That avoids a delay in liability coming into effect.
The parent with care has one month to respond to the letter telling her that the Secretary of State intends to stop acting. If she does not want action to stop, she may then be considered as a voluntary client by the agency without any further application. If the parent with care in this situation misses the one-month time limit, she can apply for maintenance later and the agency will instead pursue the non-resident parent from the current date.
The one-month period exists in the current scheme. It gives the parent with care a reasonable amount of time while not requiring the CSA to suspend action for too long. It is consistent with other time limits; for example, with regard to disputing and appealing decisions. Therefore, the one-month time limit goes across the board.
We have no evidence to suggest that the existing one-month time limit causes a problem a t the moment. I have not heard anything from the noble Lord tonight to
1242
suggest that we should extend it to two months, except on an a priori principle as opposed to problems that have been generated. I am perfectly willing to listen but, as far as I am aware, the amendment proposes a solution to a problem that does not exist. That solution, with its extended time period, could become a minor problem in itself. If the noble Lord has evidence from organisations that it is a problem and would like to send me that evidence, I shall of course reflect on it. However, at the moment I have no such evidence and have no reason to believe that this issue presents a difficulty. Therefore, I suggest to the noble Lord that we keep the legislation as it currently is on this point, and I hope that he will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Higgins: It seemed to me that evidence was unlikely to be readily available—certainly, to me. Perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness a rather simple question in the light of what she has just said. Is it not the case that, if someone misses the one-month deadline, what then ensues before the matter is resolved will take longer than if a slightly longer deadline was in place when the individual could simply go through the initial procedure rather than through the second round?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I believe that that might be true under the existing system. I hope that it will not be true under the future system. Given the simplicity of our arrangements under the future system, even if an application were brand new as opposed to a continuation of one where we had to obtain new information about the ex-partner's circumstances, we would expect to have that information within days and the assessment to be running within four to six weeks. Where one deals with, broadly speaking, continuous information—the same number of children and so on—I would hope to see the new or revisited application triggered even more quickly. Therefore, again, I do not see that it should be the problem that the noble Lord fears.
Lord Higgins: In the light of that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Higginsmoved Amendment No. 7:
Page 2, line 28, at end insert—
("( ) The Secretary of State shall report annually to Parliament on the change to the number and qualification of maintenance variations that have been made in the preceding year.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 8. The amendments concern two matters. First, Amendment No. 7 proposes that the Secretary of State should report annually to Parliament on the change to the number and qualification of maintenance variations that have been made in the preceding year. Secondly, Amendment No. 8 proposes that any change in the nature and qualification of maintenance variations shall be agreed and ratified by Parliament before a change can be implemented.

1243
I believe that we are all agreed that the simplified formula is likely to be an improvement—at any rate in terms of timing—on the existing formula under the previous legislation. I believe also that it is generally agreed that there are likely to be real problems in operating the old and new formulas side by side in the transitional period. Clearly, those who under the old formula believe that they are being treated more harshly than they would be under the new formula will feel that they have cause for complaint. Be that as it may, there was a general consensus, certainly in the Select Committee in another place, that the move towards the simplified formula is a good thing.
On the other hand, it is extremely important indeed that there should be adequate variations to deal with particular difficult situations. I believe that in the jargon a variation is described in another form. No doubt the noble Baroness will assist me.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: It is "departures".
Lord Higgins: I am not entirely sure why we are talking about both "variations" and "departures".
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: "Departures" belong to the existing scheme, "variations" to the new one.
Lord Higgins: I imagine that the reason for the change in terminology remains shrouded in mystery. We seek to argue, as the Family Law Bar Association has argued very strongly, that if the simplified terms are to be used then there is a need for more grounds of departure. They should not be reduced, as has been suggested. They should cover such matters as higher housing costs, travel-to-work costs, disability costs and so on.
In view of that, there would seem to be a case for the House continuing to be aware of any changes which have been made in the preceding year. As I have suggested, Amendment No. 7 deals with that particular problem.
Secondly, if such departures or whatever are to be decided upon, those matters should be discussed and agreed in Parliament before they go ahead.
Overall, our concern is that despite the simplified formula, the system should be sufficiently flexible to deal reasonably with individual circumstances. Therefore, we hope that the Government will be prepared to accept our proposal. I beg to move.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Earlier in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, referred to the actual effect on children brought about by this Bill. It is extremely important that Parliament should know how it is working out for children. Therefore, the idea of an annual report seems to be excellent.
It is all very well to have a system which is justified as likely to be fair and to talk about the matter generally, but it will be important to know the real implications for the children concerned. This is a way
1244
for Parliament to discover and discuss that. I suggest that the Government should give some serious thought to this proposal.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Both these amendments relate to parliamentary scrutiny of variations. Amendment No. 8 will require the Secretary of State to seek the approval of both Houses of Parliament for any changes he wishes to make to the nature and qualifying criteria of the grounds on which he will consider a variation from the normal child support maintenance calculations.
I recognise the noble Lord's concerns to ensure that new variations are not introduced through the back door with the result that the variations scheme simply reintroduces the complexity of the current scheme by another route. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, agrees with the comment made by his honourable friend Edward Leigh in another place when he said that,
"if they load a new set of variations on to the simplified formula, the system will quickly revert to something approximating the present highly complex system".
Members of the Committee will no doubt be aware that we have thought very carefully about which expenses will merit a variation of liability. We may wish to come to that in due course. To put it very simply, the two grounds of variation that we are proposing are, first, where the costs of supporting the child of the first family, including contact, need to be taken into account in order to ensure that the payment of maintenance does not subvert the father's capacity to make contact with the child. Legitimate expenses will be taken into account.
The second is where mistaken or fraudulent information has been given and we want variations on those grounds to ensure that, for example, the father is not living a life style inconsistent with the income declared. Those are the two basic grounds for variations. We are determined to keep it tight. We believe parents should put children, not other expenses, first. All the rules of the new scheme are intended to ensure this.
I am pleased to be able to provide reassurance that Section 52 of the Child Support Act, as amended by Clause 24, already provides that no regulations made under Schedule 4B can be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before Parliament and approved by both Houses. The new Schedule 4B—as substituted by Clause 6—details the cases and circumstances where a variation may be allowed. It also provides for regulation-making powers relating to the manner in which, and the extent to which, the normal calculation rules may be varied. That includes regulations relating to grounds which are not specified on the face of the Bill itself. I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, that that affords ample opportunity for debate of any proposed changes, and should provide all the safeguards as regards accountability which are being sought.
Amendment No. 7 appears to require the Secretary of State to report annually to Parliament on the number of variations, although it may be the nature of

1245
them, which he has made in the preceding year. I do not believe that it is necessary that the Secretary of State should do so because the Child Support Agency, through its chief executive, will, as now, compile the relevant information as a matter of routine and publish it in an annual business report. I shall take up the point regarding information about variations and shall try to ensure that that is embedded in any future reports. That will give your Lordships and the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, the information which is sought on the basis of which, should he ever wish to, he could raise a Question or introduce a short debate. Therefore, an appropriate vehicle is already in place—namely, the annual report of the Child Support Agency—and it seems unwise to ask the Secretary of State essentially to duplicate that work. With those reassurances, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Higgins: With regard to the confusion between the number or nature of the variations, that can be covered by asking for both the number and nature of the variations.
What the noble Baroness said about the annual report of the Child Support Agency largely covers the point which I was seeking to make about that and the question of agreeing variations by statutory instrument.
I agree with the noble Baroness that we do not want to have so many variations that we go back to the former complexities. Anyone, like myself, who has suffered from arguing those complexities in the past on behalf of constituents—or sometimes against them—will realise that that is not a route which we want to follow. Indeed, it is not. Nevertheless, we believe that there needs to be a degree of flexibility. As the noble Baroness pointed out, some of those issues arise later in the Bill in specific terms. No doubt we can pursue them at that time. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 8 not moved.]
Baroness Hollis of Heighammoved Amendment No. 9:
Page 2, line 34, leave out from beginning to ("and") in line 39.
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 10, 79, 81 to 83, 85, 87 to 91, 104, 106 to 108, 200 and 201. This group of amendments is a technical group necessary to improve the drafting of the Bill and to ensure that it achieves what is intended.
Amendments Nos. 87, 88 and 90 are minor amendments in connection with the new civil penalty of disqualification from holding a driving licence. Of course, we shall have a substantive debate on Amendment No. 84 regarding that matter. These amendments are necessary because of changes currently being made to the Powers of Criminal Courts Act. The effect is unchanged.
1246
When magistrates' courts have made a disqualification order, the non-resident parent will be required to produce his licence. These amendments concern the powers of the police to ask the non-resident parent to produce the licence if it was not given to the courts. Failure to produce the licence in these circumstances is a criminal offence punishable by a fine.
The new simple system will, for the first time, enable the CSA to devote greater resources to collection and enforcement. We believe that this and the new measures in respect of driving licences together with the ability to deduct maintenance from a wider range of benefits will ensure that regular maintenance payments are secured from the vast majority of nonresident parents.
The other amendments, including a number that relate to Clause 17 of the Bill about civil imprisonment in Scotland, make technical corrections or additions to parts of the Bill to ensure that it achieves what is intended without unnecessary duplication. As I say, these are technical drafting issues. Later we shall come to the substantive issues. With that explanation I hope that noble Lords will accept the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Higgins: The Committee will be grateful for that explanation. If the Committee eventually takes a different view on some of the later matters, like disqualification and confiscation of driving licences, no doubt we shall see another set of amendments like these that will put the matter right. That being so, we are grateful to the Minister for explaining it. I do not want to oppose this further at this stage.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hollis of Heighammoved Amendment No. 10:
Page 2, line 40, leave out ("in connection with any other assessment of maintenance").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Substituted Part I of Schedule I to the Child Support Act 1991]:
Lord Higginsmoved Amendment No. 11:
Page 89, 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.").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 11, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 14 and 17. This is an important amendment that seeks to impose what in current jargon would be described as "an upper limit". There is widespread feeling—again I refer to and support the Family Law Bar Association—for the view that there should be a maximum season on liability and that the basis of saying that the contribution from the absent parent should be unlimited is one that gives us considerable cause for concern.

1247
In effect, it will give the parent with care and, through him or her—although that is not certain—it will give the child the right to share in the income of the non-resident parent without limit. That raises a number of important issues as to what extent it is appropriate to say in a Bill that is designed to protect the rights of the child and that states that the child should be supported, whether the child should have, over and above what may be a reasonable amount for that purpose, an entitlement to the income of the absent parent.
Earlier the noble Baroness sought to argue that, in sharing the responsibility for a child, the parent with care was, in effect, providing the home, and so on, and that it was up to the absent parent to provide the money. That is debatable, not least because, as we know—we shall come to this point later—the income and wealth of the parent with care may be substantially greater than that of the absent parent. At all events, even if the situation is one where the absent parent is rich, or well off compared with the parent with care, it is arguable that there should be some limit imposed on the amount that is transferred from the absent parent to the children of, let us say, a first marriage.
The matter becomes particularly complicated when someone has had several marriages or may have fathered a succession of children without having been married at all. That may be less likely in the case of someone who is extremely well off than otherwise. None the less, it would seem unreasonable that there should be no limit whatever to the amount that is transferred from the absent parent to the parent with care.
The amendments before us seek to deal with that particular problem in a variety of ways. Amendment No. 11, for example, suggests that there should be a maximum sum for which the non-resident parent is liable and that, following the calculation of the amount paid by a non-resident parent, the Secretary of State shall determine the net weekly income of the parent so that there is some degree of equity between the two.
I believe that the Select Committee sought to argue as follows:
"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"—
I stress the words "the automatic application"—
"of the revised CSA formula".
The Select Committee reached that conclusion after taking evidence from a number of witnesses who argued along those lines.
Similarly, we also have in front of us Amendments Nos. 14 and 17 that suggest that the upper limit of child support maintenance may reasonably be of the order of £400 a week for each qualifying child. I do not believe that anyone would reasonably argue that that limit is too tight. Even in the most exotic circumstances, a limit of £400 a week for each
1248
qualifying child would seem relaxed. If there were three children, that would mean £1,200 a week from the absent parent to the parent with care. We put that down as a basis for debate.
Clearly, we are not concerned with the vast majority of cases in front of us. The number of people who can afford to pay £400 a week for their child, absent or not, is limited, but to have no limit at all would mean that, effectively, it would become a tax on the absent parent. We believe that in these circumstances there is a strong argument that at least some limit—we can debate the quantum—ought to be imposed. I hope that the Minister is sympathetic to that view. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: We, on these Benches, and my honourable friends have discussed at some length, and on a good many occasions, the principles involved in these amendments and in the next group of amendments. We can see a good deal of merit in the arguments on both sides. All of us were extremely reluctant to come to a conclusion until my honourable friend, Professor Webb, finally grasped the nettle and laid down a general principle. Perhaps I may save myself the labour of speaking on the next group of amendments by explaining that the general principle was that in general children ought to share in the increasing wealth of their parents. That means that we decided we would not support this group of amendments.
Suppose a child of Mr Donald Trump were subject to British law. The sum of £400 a week may seem to him or her to be rather mean considering his or her father's resources and could lead to a certain amount of resentment. On the other hand, we felt that some account should be taken, although not in quite the same way or to the same extent, of increasing wealth of the parent with care. Clearly, the Minister is correct that the care is a direct contribution to the welfare of the child and anything that did not take that into account would be entirely indefensible. On the other hand, a situation can exist in which the parent with care may be a great deal richer than the non-resident parent.
We have to try to reduce the resentment that arrangements for child support have created. I can see among those who feel resentment, even at the basic principle, that that is one that could easily be fastened on and could lead to a great deal of complaint. Although we shall not support this group of amendments, we shall support the next group, beginning with Amendment No. 12.
6 p.m.
Lord Higgins: I am grateful to the noble Earl for giving way. In the course of weighing the pros and cons of the arguments, did he consider, if he decides not to support these amendments, whether the principle should be extended to those whose marriage has not broken down and to those who were never married?

1249
Does he believe that the law should indicate that a very wealthy parent must give a certain percentage of his income to any given child?
Earl Russell: Subject to the provisions of Amendment No. 15, which we have yet to debate, yes, I think that I would say that.
Baroness Pitkeathley: The noble Earl has reminded us that arguments can be made on both sides as regards caps on maintenance. However, we should remember that when we take into account the philosophy that lies behind the provisions relating to child support in the Bill, we cannot support these amendments. That philosophy is not about need, but rather the rights of a child to support and the responsibilities of parents to give that support, whether they are absent or present.
Where parents remain together, the child would share proportionately in the income of the household. In my view, and speaking with some experience as a lone parent, it is morally unjust if children do not share proportionately in the income because the parents live apart. We should also remember that we are trying to introduce the simplest possible system to improve what is currently in place. These amendments would add complexity and for that reason would make it less effective.
Furthermore, as the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, reminded us, this applies to only a very small number of people. The number of lone parent families where this would apply is absolutely tiny. I believe that we should reject the amendment.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I believe that this is an extremely important issue. One can imagine a case where the non-resident parent is extremely well-off and is forced to supply to the resident parent large sun-is of money for the children. I believe that the noble Earl mentioned that those sums would be transferred to the mother of the children. However, the children might not in fact get the money. I do not believe that such arrangements would ever be made in any other circumstances.
In any case, it is not good for children to be given large sums of money when they are young. That could happen unless an amendment of this kind is introduced. The Bill as it stands is contrary to good sense. Indeed it may well be that the children never see the money because the funds would simply be transferred from one parent to another. That will occur not even as a result of unintended consequences, but will be the result of not sufficiently thinking the matter through.
I believe that we would be making a great mistake and I hope that the Committee will support these amendments.
Lord Haskel: The noble Earl, Lord Russell, spoke of sharing in the increasing wealth of families. Unfortunately, in real life family incomes can go down as well as up. In view of the fact that in most families the household wealth will fluctuate over the period
1250
that a child is dependent on the family, the introduction of a cap would present an added complication. In order to take account of the fact that the wealth of a family can rise and fall, a cap would be a disadvantage. It would be better to keep the system as simple as possible and to stick to the arrangements that are agreed.
Baroness Byford: Perhaps I may add my support to the contributions made by my noble friends Lord Higgins and Lady Carnegy. As I understand it, we are discussing support for the child and ensuring that adequate provision is made in all cases. That was my interpretation, not that the Bill aims to give a child a lump sum of whatever size simply because that child has a parent who happens to be wealthy.
I should be grateful if the noble Baroness could clarify what we are considering here. Are we discussing a sufficient sum of money to enable the child to be brought up in a loving environment—I refer to the comments made earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne? If it is possible to demand unlimited levels of support from the parent, all that will do is introduce more controversy and bitterness to the relationship. It must be noted that a cap of £400 a week per child is a very high limit.
I believe that we are moving away from the basic intention of the Bill which, as I understand it, is to ensure that adequate support is given to a child. I did not think that we were aiming to secure investment for the future for certain children. Can the noble Baroness make clear to the Committee the intention here?
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I believe that we may have forgotten exactly what was the intention that lay behind the introduction of the original Child Support Act. The original legislation was designed to make parents on social security pay towards the maintenance of their children in order that the Treasury could save around £400 million a year. That was what it was all about and I believe that we should bear that very much in mind. The legislation was not introduced in order to distribute largesse from one family to another and thus give some children a lifestyle that perhaps they should not enjoy at a particularly young age.
Furthermore, we should bear in mind that circumstances can change. For example, there may be a separation in a family. A man or a woman remarries and, whereas previously the partner might have been poor or perhaps living on an average wage, through the newly formed couple's diligence and desire to get on, they build up a large business. They then become relatively rich. A part of that success will have been contributed by the new spouse. Why should she contribute towards the upkeep of children who are not hers? I do not believe that circumstances of that kind have been considered. I think that it would be entirely wrong to expect a new spouse to contribute. Because the business would belong jointly to her, that is what she would be doing.
I believe that my noble friend should take heed of what has been said and, if not today then at some stage, consider the force of these amendments. She

1251
should give some consideration to what has been said and then bring forward a formula that would set a reasonable limit on contributions that might have to be made—usually, of course, by men.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The proposal has given rise to an interesting debate. The purpose of these amendments is to introduce an upper limit to the amount of maintenance that a non-resident parent is required to pay. This would reverse the Government's present intention that there should be no upper limit to the amount of maintenance payable.
Amendments Nos. 14 and 17 seek to restrict the amount payable in respect of any one child to £400 a week, which under our proposals equates to an annual gross income of roughly £200,000 where there is one qualifying child. Amendment No. 11 provides that the level of the limit, or "maximum sum" is to be prescribed in regulations, although the wording is not entirely clear and we would need to discuss further the details.
I suggest that having an upper limit to the amount of maintenance payable would result in an inconsistency of treatment between non-resident parents with relatively high levels of income and those on more modest sums. Our decision not to introduce a cap was not one that was reached lightly. We have considered the issues very carefully and we accept that there are strong and respectable arguments on both sides. I accept that the matter is quite finely balanced.
As noble Lords have commented, there is a concern that if maintenance is set as a proportion of net income, levels of maintenance where income is very high bear no relation to the needs of the child. Furthermore, the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, has tonight argued that in those circumstances maintenance payments effectively become spousal maintenance payments. The counter-argument, which was put persuasively by my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley, is that the children of intact families share in the standard of living of their parents without any limit. Why should the amount that a father spends on his children be less because he is not living with them? It is important to remember that child support rates are not based on a calculation of the child's need for maintenance.
Of a current case load of about 1 million nonresident parents, only 500 have incomes exceeding £50,000 a year and only 120 have net incomes exceeding £150,000. The noble Lord will recognise the point made by my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley about having to scrutinise all incomes to protect or cap 120 non-resident parents.
Under the new system, there will be no maintenance requirement but simply a straightforward percentage slice of income that all parents can understand. Maintenance for all children will be based on what a father can afford—not what he or anyone else believes the children need. All non-resident parents will keep a minimum of 75 per cent of their net income in the new liability calculation. If just one child qualifies for maintenance support in the first family, 15 per cent of the net income of a higher rate taxpayer equates to
1252
between 9 per cent and 10 per cent only of his gross income. The rest remains with the tax authorities, national insurance and himself. After divorce, the average non-resident parent is 15 per cent better off whereas the parent with care and the children are on average 15 per cent worse off.
I acknowledge that the arguments are finely balanced. Our decision takes account of the various views expressed in the consultation exercise on the Green Paper and in talking to interested groups and individuals. The Social Security Select Committee in another place, after carefully considering many of the points raised today, reached the same conclusion. Placing an upper limit on the amount paid in respect of any one child is inconsistent with the Government's plan for a simple and transparent system of rates that protects the rights of all children to support from nonresident parents, in keeping with their ability to provide. I ask the noble Lord not to pursue his amendment.
Lord Higgins: This has been a fascinating debate, not least because, in reply to my intervention, we seem to have heard new Liberal Democrat party policy that government should legislate how much should be allocated by parents to their children in any family that has not broken up. If that is the case, we may be in serious trouble.
Earl Russell: The noble Lord asked me for a moral principle, not a prescription. I will qualify my remarks. I would hesitate to apply that principle to Augustus the Strong, who had 592 known children.
Lord Higgins: I always thought that the noble Earl thought that moral principles and what ought to be in legislation were one and the same. We shall, no doubt, pursue that point on another occasion.
The noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, and the Minister said that the income of every non-resident parent would have to be scrutinised to identify those who were to be capped. If we were to insert this simple provision into the Bill, anyone who thought they ought to be capped would say so in response to the agency's inquiries. It is unlikely that the vast majority would need to have their means assessed in that way or would think they were caught by the cap.
The Minister referred to spousal income rather than assistance for the child. On the kind of numbers the noble Baroness was talking about, it is doubtful that the needs would be of such a high order. The amount will be based on what the other parent can afford. We have to take into account the position of second families. In the case of someone who is extremely wealthy and has a second family, paying support without limit on the percentage basis might reduce the income he can devote to the children of the second family. One thing that is indelibly printed on my mind from dealing with such cases is the bitterness of second families, which gives rise to many problems and a determination on the part of absent parents who have remarried to avoid by any means becoming involved with the CSA. On this basis, there

1253
could be a redistribution of income from the second family to the first family. There would be a variation on the old purse-to-wallet argument, as to who ought to have the money.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, pointed out that it was not the intention of the 1991 Act—or this Bill, I thought—to lead to massive transfers from one group to another. One could have an extremely rich mother with care combined with an extremely rich absent parent—but the absent father would still have to transfer support, without limit on a percentage basis, to his very rich previous wife. We will need to return to these complicated matters on Report, then reach a view on the balance of argument. Subject to that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Higginsmoved Amendment No. 12:
Page 89, 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.
(A2) Where the net weekly income of the parent with care exceeds the net weekly income of the non-resident parent 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.
(A3) Where the non-resident parent is liable to pay child support maintenance to more than one person the provisions of sub-paragraph (A l) shall apply to each parent with care and the reductions in the amount payable provided for by sub-paragraph (A2) 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.").
The noble Lord said: With this, we may appropriately consider also Amendment No. 26. The argument is simply that the income of the parent with care and the absent parent should both be taken into account. The Government seem determined only to take into account the income of the absent parent. That was made clear earlier by the Minister when she said that the contribution by the with-care parent was care and that of the absent parent was money. We have grave doubts, believing it important to take both aspects into account.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I did not mean to imply that the father's sole responsibility is that of providing cash support. I would certainly wish to see contact and loving support. But when it comes to determining proper apportionment, all the research indicates that children of an intact family take 30 per cent of its income—not just in terms of food and trainers but housing costs and the like. Therefore, it seems equitable to allocate 15 per cent to the parent with whom the child is living and 15 per cent to the nonresident parent. I was not trying to suggest that the absent parent is only there for the money and the caring parent is there to do everything else.
Lord Higgins: In the light of the debate we had earlier on the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord
1254
Northbourne, it is clearly desirable—not least in light of the statistics the noble Baroness advanced earlier—that the absent parent, man or woman, should continue to take part in the emotional and other development of the children concerned. That is something on which we should all agree. Where there is room for dispute is whether, on the other side of that coin, the fact that the parent with care takes most of the responsibility—in many cases not all the responsibility—mean s that he or she should be in some way exempt from paying anything at all. That is a debatable proposition, particularly where, after the marriage has broken down or if there was no marriage at all, the parent with care is better off than the absent parent, whether it be male or female. That gives rise to great tensions and seems to us, in a simple-minded way, to be unfair.
The parent with care ought to contribute, if she is able, towards the cost of the child's rearing in terms of finance. The noble Baroness's position is that, however well off the parent with care is, she should not contribute anything financially. Is that right?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I must challenge the noble Lord. I made it clear that the parent with care contributes her share of the maintenance by providing the lifestyle which the child enjoys by living with her.
Lord Higgins: But she does not contribute anything at all in relation to finance. Am I wrong?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The child is fed; has its clothes bought; the housing and heating costs paid; school costs, trainers and gym kit paid for. Is that not part of the parent-with-care's contribution in kind?
Lord Higgins: We fully accept that the parent with care, male or female, contributes in that way. But it is not reasonable to say that that exempts them from making a financial contribution.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: That is a financial contribution.
Lord Higgins: I suppose if one wished to do so, one could evaluate it in a cost sense. But if one does that, then the noble Baroness is hoist with her own petard. She has to argue that that value is the same as the value of the amount which is being contributed by the absent parent. The noble Baroness is not doing that.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am sorry to get under the noble Lord's feet. I am baffled by this. A child needs support. We know from all the research and experience abroad that in most families that takes around 30 per cent of their income; not in a narrow sense but in the broadest sense of living costs. That is how much is apportioned.
The argument is simple. If the child needs that sum of money, it is reasonable to assume that that should be split 50–50 between the two parents. Clearly, because the child is living with the carer—normally the mother, but not invariably so—the mother is providing that 15 per cent not in cash, but in kind. She has to purchase

1255
that kind through cash, including housing costs, food on the table, heating, TV licence and so forth. That is her contribution. The absent parent's contribution towards those living costs, because he is not providing care in kind because it is not an intact family, is the cash. If they were together, he would be providing it in cash because he would possibly be bringing in the earnings and the mother might be producing it in kind. That is being replicated in these arrangements.
I am baffled that the noble Lord is not willing to put a financial equivalence on the contribution made by the parent with care to the cash sum produced by the non-resident parent.
Lord Higgins: I am happy to do that. But it still seems to me that one ought to take into account the resources of both parties in the broadest sense of the term. As I understand it, that is not what will happen under the Bill as drafted; the wealth of the parent with care is not to be taken into account in determining how the matter should be adjusted. There is a strong argument for saying that that is not the right approach, not least because it will tend to create tensions; it will not lead to a satisfactory arrangement.
In this context, our amendment imposes a limit in that regard. In another place the Australian experience was called in aid. A senior Australian lawyer gave evidence to the Select Committee to the effect that some sort of adjustment ought to be made on the lines that we are suggesting. Perhaps I ought to give the noble Baroness the chance to have a run at this, so to speak, rather than by way of intervention and we can then take the matter forward.
Baroness Gale: The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, said that this was a simple amendment taking the incomes of both parents into account. But we would argue that the parent with the care of the child gives much more in kind and will make a greater contribution to the rearing of the child. That contribution cannot be calculated on a balance sheet. The amendment seems to argue that it is the incomes of the parents that are important, rather than the needs of the child. But the needs and rights of the child must be paramount and that is what we should be considering.
The Government's clear policy is to lift children out of poverty. So how can anyone seriously propose that if in some instances—a small percentage—the parent taking responsibility of the day-to-day care happens to have a higher income than the non-resident parent, the child should be penalised. The non-resident parent should continue to make a financial contribution to the agreed amount, which is 15 per cent in terms of the first child, irrespective of what the resident parent's income is. In that way, the child will share in the wealth of both parents, as the child would if the parents had stayed together.
The key issue here is children's rights. The children should be allowed to share in the wealth of both parents and not have their income diminished because the resident parent's income increases. Amendment No. 12 will allow the non-resident parent to pay less
1256
than the agreed 15 per cent for the first child. That would, in effect, let the non-resident parent off the hook. For example, if the mother (in most cases it would be the mother who would have care and responsibility) worked hard to improve her position and because of that her income rose, then the nonresident parent could have his contribution diminished. That cannot be right. We believe Amendment No. 12 should be rejected and I support the Government's proposals.
Baroness Byford: I rise to make a short intervention on this amendment. I am somewhat concerned that, if we are not careful, we may be looking at the past when, in this day and age, we should be looking to the future. Many women are managing to hold good jobs—I accept not all and it is the same for men; people's incomes vary enormously. I support my noble friend's suggestion that both incomes should be taken into consideration. I cannot see why the Government feel that they should not.
I listened with care to what the Minister said about the mother—the resident carer is predominantly the mother—giving time and I accept that it is difficult to evaluate time, whether it is a man or a woman. However, that mother may be earning £40,000. Some women are now earning a lot more than that. If the father of that child earns much less money and goes on to re-marry, it would be unfair not to take the earnings of the caring wife into consideration. I should therefore like to press the Minister further on that point.
In many ways, I think the Bill has grown from past experience, when some women were not working. However, in this day and age there are great opportunities for women to earn, and many are taking up that challenge, and that point has a bearing on the amendments.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Pitkeathley: I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, that this is not an issue of men versus women but about a child's right to support.
I should like to link financial support, emotional support and maintaining contact with children.
We all agree that emotional development is the most important matter. Research has repeatedly shown that absent parents who contribute, whether they are mothers or fathers, are much more likely to keep in touch. The money is almost a symbol of commitment to the child and of their willingness to take, and continue to take, responsibility as a parent, whether or not they are living with the other partner.
The fact that the parent with care is well off does not absolve the other parent of this responsibility. Moreover, it will certainly contribute towards maintaining emotional support, which is very important for the psychological wellbeing of the child.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Would the noble Baroness agree that the emotional support of the nonresident parent will be lost if the whole thing appears

1257
to be grossly unfair? I can think of nothing that would alienate the non-resident parent and his or her new family more than if the situation is manifestly unfair.
The Family Law Bar Association thought that the lack of a cap was crude social engineering. I think this is an inadvertent giving-in to feminism, thinking that it will be the woman who will perhaps be better off. It may not necessarily be the case, but it is likely to be. One must be sure that the emotional support of the child comes from both sides. That support will be lost if this is maintained.
Baroness Pitkeathley: I clearly emphasised that the situation applies to either parent and that this is not a women's issue. Emotional support and continued contact are the important factors.
Baroness Crawley: I should like to reiterate some of the points made by the Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley. The contribution of both parents is taken into account in the Bill. None of us is saying that the parent with care—and it is nearly always her—does not make a financial contribution as well as a contribution in kind. The Bill is fair: the contribution of the absent parent is the maintenance contribution. The parent with care makes a contribution in kind by giving time and presence, and by fulfilling organisational responsibilities. They may also make a financial contribution. We are talking about a fairness of approach.
However, I challenge the optimism of the noble Baroness. Lady Byford. I deal daily with figures on women's and men's income, and, although I would like to think that in the future the situation will greatly improve, most of the women about whom we are talking, who are the parents with care, will on average be 20 per cent poorer than the parent who does not have the care. Therefore, even though in the future we hope that men and women's pay will become much more equal, we are talking about a lot of poorer women today whose incomes, in their lifetimes, will never go into double figures.
Earl Russell: The noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, is clearly right about the present balance of income. However, in this and the last group of amendments we appear to be following the principle of Parkinson's law on the bicycle shed: spending an hour and a half debating the bicycle shed and 10 minutes on the nuclear reactor. Both amendments deal with a small number of people. Nevertheless, for the sake of public acceptance, we might as well try and get it right. Legislation since 1991 has conspicuously lacked public acceptance.
I normally agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, and on this occasion I agree with her about the importance of the implied emotional commitment in the principle of financial support; but she was attacking what the amendment does not say. The amendment does not say that in these cases the non-resident parent shall give no support; it says that that support shall be reduced in such manner as may be prescribed. It does not state that the principle of
1258
support should disappear, and that is quite right because it satisfies the point. It merely states that it should be taken into account.
Nobody, as far as I can hear, in any quarter of the Chamber, is disputing the principle that care, with its financial, emotional and work implications, must be taken into account. However, as I understand it, the amendment concedes this principle already and it is not an issue. The extent to which it should be taken into account and in what way is a difficult question. I understand very well why the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, has chosen to leave that matter to regulation.
The point remains that if no account is taken of the principle of the amendment, we will have a great deal of trouble with public acceptance of the Act.
Let us imagine two cases that are by no means unimaginable. One is of a highly successful woman barrister, a parent with care, who has kept the children. The husband is unemployed or temporarily employed in a series of part-time jobs, with very little money indeed; and she is earning £200,000 a year, as successful barristers occasionally do. In this situation there will be a certain amount of public feeling. Imagine the heiress of a millionaire who has had an impromptu affair with a bricklayer—such things have happened and will continue to happen. She keeps the child and then the CSA duns the bricklayer for 15 per cent of his income.
That is only one case, but stop and think for a moment about what the Sun will be capable of doing with that case. The Minister knows that I am perfectly capable of snapping my fingers at the Sun—I do it daily. However, I do not think it is particularly wise to make the Sun or the Mail, or their ilk, a gratuitous present of a free issue on which they can go to town as much as they like.
I ask the Minister, for the sake of acceptance of the legislation: please come in out of the rain.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I add my voice to that appeal. I do so because, together with the noble Earl and other noble Lords, including the late Lord Houghton, we spent day after day, night after night, into the early hours of the morning, trying to convince the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clash fern, that the Child Support Act, of which he was the prime mover, would cause enormous difficulties and would alienate people not only from the Act but from the Government. I described it as "another poll tax bit of legislation", and so it has proved. It has not been accepted by either men or women. It has hurt both. Indeed, it has provided little good for both. It was supposed to help women, but it has not helped them at all: it has helped the Treasury. In fact, it has not helped the Treasury because its expenses were at least six-times as much as estimated during the course of the Bill.
We have been through all this before. I do not want my noble friend to do what was done previously and not listen to the words of wisdom that are coming From the Front Benches and, indeed, from some on the Back Benches. I generally support the Bill. It will make a good deal of improvement on what we had previously.

1259
Nevertheless, I do not want the Bill to fail on the basis of public perception and because of a failure of public acceptance, as mentioned by the noble Earl.
There are many parts of the Bill about which we should be worried. For example, we all accept that those who have care of children—mainly women—have a most important job to do and one that is worth a lot of money. But as has already been pointed out, if at the same time the woman is able not only to employ people to carry out those duties but also has a lot of money, surely she should contribute monetarily towards the upkeep of the child, as in the case with wives who go out to work.
We are talking about the rights of children. Of course children have the right to maintenance, to a good life and to a good standard of living. But that is where the rights stop. I hope that we are not presuming to tell people who remain in a marriage or in a partnership relationship that they should be contributing a given percentage of their money to their children. That is something that I would not accept. Up to the age of about 60, I happen to believe that I am far better at looking after the money that they will inherit than they are.
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I had not expected my noble friend to finish his contribution by talking about inheritance. However, these amendments seek to change the way that maintenance liability of a nonresident parent is calculated to take account of the income of the parent with care in certain prescribed circumstances.
Amendment No. 12 provides for a reduction in the amount of maintenance payable where the parent with care's net income exceeds that of the non-resident parent. The manner of the reduction is not prescribed but is to be provided in regulations. It is not entirely clear whether the reduction is a pound-for-pound calculation or whether the maintenance would be reduced by a lesser amount. However, Amendment No. 26leads me to think that the latter may be the case.
Amendment No. 26 provides for the net weekly income of the non-resident parent (upon which child support liability is based) to be reduced by a penny for each pound by which the gross annual income from all sources of a parent with care exceeds £25,000, subject to there being a limit that would prevent the nonresident parent's net income being reduced by more than 50 per cent. This would lead to a consequential reduction in the amount of maintenance payable in affected cases. Additionally, this amendment also provides for the calculation of a non-resident parent's net income to include income from both earned and unearned sources.
Perhaps I may leave that last point aside for a moment and return to first principles. I find myself unable to understand why the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, cannot, apparently, understand the Government's position. At the end of the day, the essential issue is not whether the man or the women
1260
can better afford to pay maintenance—in other words, setting one off against the other—it is, as my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley, and others, so rightly said, that the child has the right to maintenance from his or her father, irrespective of the income of the mother, exactly as if they were part of an intact family. I believe that that 15 per cent or 20 per cent contribution from him, according to the number of children, is a right that the child has independent of the income of the parent with care.
Members of the Committee may ask why that is so. In response, I should like to suggest four basic reasons—
Lord Higgins: Perhaps the noble Baroness could clarify something before she leaves that specific point. She argued that the balance would still be this way if the marriage had not broken up and if we were talking about an "intact family". But if it were an intact family and the wife earned much more than the husband, surely she would contribute more.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Yes. She would contribute more because the whole family would enjoy a higher standard of living in which the child would participate. Perhaps I may have another go at trying to see whether I can get the noble Lord to understand our position.
I should like to suggest four reasons why this is a matter concerning the child's rights. The first is grounds of equity. I have already said that research has estimated that around 30 per cent of a family's income is spent on the children and on extra costs; for example, housing, clothes, and so on. The woman contributes her 15 per cent because she maintains the child, while the man contributes his 15 per cent by paying cash maintenance because, after all, the child is not living with him.
Where the woman has a higher income the child enjoys a higher standard of living. That care may be in the form of cash, it may be her time or it may be in the form of opportunity costs. Perhaps I may give the Committee some examples. Let us say that the woman is on £7,500 a year (£150 a week) and the man is on £10,000. He will contribute £30 a week to the child's support, while she and the child will be on £7,500. They will probably be living in modest, rented accommodation and will have to watch carefully what is spent on food. They will probably have to economise on things like fresh fruit, and so on, and will have to search for the least expensive clothes that can be found. Indeed, they will probably have to think twice as to whether they can afford a holiday, other than one which means staying with friends.
I hope that that is not too much of a caricature of how a lone parent on £150 a week might be living, together with, say, the £30 coming in from the nonresident parent. However, let us assume instead that the man earns £10,000 and the woman earns £20,000 a year. What then would the child enjoy? It is possible that the child would be living in an owner-occupied house with more space and a garden, situated in an area that is more attractive to the child in terms of parks, and so on. The extra money would also be spent

1261
on heating, lighting, repairs and probably a higher standard of food with more fresh fruit, vegetables and probably—I do not know—organic food. The child would be able to enjoy school trips that the parent on £150 a week would find very difficult to afford. The child would also have the benefit of more expensive clothes; for example, more expensive trainers. He or she would almost certainly enjoy a holiday, possibly abroad. There would also be better transport and a computer.
Those advantages would not come from the man's £30 contribution per week; it would come about because the woman was earning £20,000 a year. As a result, the child would be able to enjoy all of those benefits by virtue of the woman's increased income. She would be paying their joint bills and he would be making a constant contribution related to his ability to pay. The difference in the standard of income between the child whose parent is on £150 a week (£7,500 a year) and the child whose parent receives £400 is huge. It arises because the woman is able to offer a higher standard of living than the child would otherwise enjoy. That is her cash contribution towards paying the bills—the mortgage, the school trips, the holiday and the clothes—and it goes over and beyond her time as carer and her opportunity costs. Indeed, without the child, she might be able to earn even more.
I do not understand why noble Lords opposite do not accept the fact that the difference between the standard of living that the child will enjoy where the woman earns £7,500 and the father earns £10,000 and where the mother earns £20,000 and the father earns £10,000 is expended in part and proportionately on the child. This means that the child is supported in a more attractive and certainly more comfortable lifestyle than would otherwise be the case. That is the first point: the child enjoys the standard of living provided by the parent with care. Therefore, because the mother is paying in kind, so to speak, as well as in cash, the child has a right to expect that the father's contribution should not be reduced accordingly.
Secondly, I turn to the grounds of simplicity. At present, if the man has a second family—whether he has one, two or three children in that second family, and whether or not they are his biological children with the new partner or the step-children whom the new partner brought into the relationship—the children in that family are treated in the same way. They are offset against his income before we apportion the 15 per cent for the first family.
If her income—that is, the parent with care—is to be taken into account, I suggest that the income of his new partner should be taken into account in assessing what she can contribute to the stepchildren, as well as to the biological children, in the second family. If her income as well as the man's is to be taken into account for the first family, one must do that for the second family. However, some of those children will not be their joint children; they will be stepchildren. In that case we should consider the income of his partner's ex-partner in contributing to the stepchildren. While we are considering four people's incomes, we might just as well throw in that of the fifth, which is, of course, the
1262
parent with care's new partner's capacity to pay for the new standard of living that may be required, for example, the extra house and so on.
What have we done? We have moved from considering one assessment—the man's—to two assessments—the parents with care—to three assessments—the man's new partner's—to four assessments—the man's new partner's ex-partner—and possibly a fifth assessment—that of the new partner of the parent with care. That comprises five income calculations instead of one. By withholding one piece of information five people could delay the maintenance assessment. Does the Committee in all honesty believe that assessing five people's incomes on a worst case scenario would result in the children receiving more maintenance?
My third point is that on the ground of common sense, that is not worth it. Parents with care generally are poor. Some 96 per cent of parents with care have incomes of under £100 a week. Only 7,000 have incomes of over £10,000 a year. Only 200 in the entire caseload of 1.2 million have incomes of over £25,000 a year. Therefore potentially we could assess five people's incomes in each of the 600,000 or so private cases to calculate the woman's contribution in 200 cases, even though the child already enjoys the higher standard of living that she is providing. The amount that would result from that elaborate la ramie arrangement of maintenance would be small.
For example, a non-resident parent with net earnings of £250 a week and one child pays £38 a week. If the parent with care was one of the 200 I have mentioned—that figure is probably by now 100—with earnings of £28,000 a year, under the penny in the pound formula his maintenance would be reduced from £38 to £33 a week. We would have to consider 600,000 cases and five people's incomes to pick up 200 cases to save him paying a fiver a week. Is that sensible?
Fourthly, apart from the delays in making the assessment, it is also costly. The cost of the IT system—about £10 million a year—would be several times more than the total sum collected. Given that the man's share is net, we would have to do elaborate calculations about whether the woman's was net or gross. I hope that in the light of arguments about equity, simplicity, the standard of living of parents with care who are poor, and the costs and delays, the noble Lord opposite will recognise that this is simply not an amendment that is worth pursuing. I hope that he will concede that point not just on grounds of principle—although there is a principle here about which I feel strongly—but on the ground that such an amendment would produce expensive and complicated outcomes which, because of the delays I have mentioned, would thwart the payment of maintenance to children.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: The noble Baroness has produced a wonderful argument and she has all the details worked out. However, she completely neglects the fact that unearned income is not taken into account. That could alter the argument. She clearly has not listened to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, who

1263
pointed out—I thought this important and I imagine that the noble Baronesses seated behind the noble Baroness saw the point—that one case could completely wreck the whole system in the public's view because of the sheer unfairness of it. I hope that the noble Earl will elaborate on that point.
Earl Russell: I understand where the Minister is coming from. She is coming from a formula-based sense of justice. But to my mind she has illustrated more clearly than I could ever have done myself why a formula-based attempt at justice must always be unjust because it cannot take account of circumstances. The Minister has repeated again her arguments about complexity. If you set out to avoid complexity, you set out to avoid the real world. Many people have tried to do that, no one as far as I know has yet succeeded. All the arguments about complexity that the Minister developed are arguments that bite only on those who believe in doing justice according to a formula. We on these Benches are not among that number. We therefore find the basis of those arguments has no purchase on us.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Before the noble Lord sits down I hope that I may respond. The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, is right to say that we are not taking the woman's unearned income into account; we are not taking the man's into account either. There is entire equity there. The unearned income is taken into account only if it is so substantial that it represents some kind of diversion; in other words, he declares an income of, say, £100 a week but has a lifestyle that requires an income of £500 or £1,000 a week. That would create the basis for a variation. However, as I said, there is equity between both parties.
I am surprised that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, asked us to tailor our policies to the prejudices or knee-jerk reactions of the tabloid press. He would be the first to ask us not to do this in the case of asylum seekers.
Earl Russell: I made clear that I asked the noble Baroness to do this only in the rare circumstance in which their case happens to be just.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I cannot conceive of any circumstances where the parent with care has income where it is just to take that into account given the arguments I have set out. If one does that, one is effectively asking the parent with care to pay twice over, not only in terms of the cash payment of bills incurred as part of the care of the child but also in terms of a maintenance contribution because the other party's maintenance that is received is reduced accordingly. The noble Earl asks the parent with care to pay twice over. I am slightly shocked at the suggestion that we should tailor the provision in case one or two cases are picked up by the Sun. Perhaps the noble Earl did not hear me say that. I am slightly shocked that the Liberal Party of all parties should say that we should be wary of cases coming to the notice
1264
of the Sun which might be inconvenient to us and therefore we should treat parents with care unfairly on that ground.
Earl Russell: I must ask the Minister to withdraw the word "unfairly". We did not think that what we proposed was unfair and would not have proposed it if we had.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I think that it is unfair and that is why I said it.
Earl Russell: We do not.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Of course I would not expect the noble Earl to propose something that he believed to be unfair. However, the fact that he has a belief does not mean to say that the belief is correct. On this occasion I suggest to him that it is not. The provision we propose is fair and decent. The parent with care is providing in kind. That also means paying out cash. The absent parent is providing in cash because he is not providing in kind, in exactly the same way as if they were an intact family.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, said that the formula was unjust. The alternative is to return to an essentially court-based system which I believe many Members on all sides of the Chamber consider to have failed children in the past and, if it were to be reinvented at huge cost and with huge complexity, would fail children again. It would be discretionary and a lottery. It might suit the instincts of angry fathers who want their day in court. However, I am concerned—as, I hope, is the Committee—with the well-being of the child which is not best met by an adversarial situation in which the father seeks to reduce his maintenance. What message does the child get from that except that his or her father does not want to support him to the extent that the agency thinks he should be supported?
We believe that the proposals are simple. Booklets and tables will be available at post offices, surgeries, libraries and other such places explaining net income and the number of children. The man will know what he has to pay. He will pay his taxes, his national insurance and his child support. The woman, in turn, will know what she can expect to receive from the man, whether she is on benefit or in work, from rough and ready assumptions about his income. The woman will offer the child the standard of living that she is capable of, both in cash and in kind. We think that that is fair and reasonable. Any proposal that the parent with care should pay cash in addition seems to me a double whammy and deeply unfair to lone parents.
7 p.m.
Lord Higgins: Let me first pick up the point made by the noble Baroness a moment ago. As she well knows, we are entirely of the view she expressed; namely, that it would be a mistake to go back to the courts and to get rid of the Child Support Agency. We believe that the right approach is to do our best—it is not easy—to improve the Child Support Agency.

1265
While this debate is unlikely to hit the headlines tomorrow, I presume to say that it shows very clearly the ability of your Lordships' House to debate this kind of very complicated issue in a remarkably sophisticated way. It has been enhanced by the virtuoso performance of the Minister. Having said that, she has totally failed to convince me.
Perhaps I may make one or two simple points to start with. First, in the light of the debate that we had on the earlier amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, we are all agreed—it is absolutely common ground—that so far as concerns emotional support and contact with the children, the support of both parents is a matter of great importance. There is no dispute whatever in regard to that.
Let me make another point which has not been raised so far but which is rather implicit in what has been said; namely, that somehow the absent parent wants to be the absent parent. In many cases that is not so. As I well know from my constituency experience, it may be that the marriage broke up in a way which deeply distressed the absent parent. Again, I think that is common ground.
I do not think it is true that a small number of people are affected. There may be a considerable number of situations in which the wife has a higher income and greater wealth—if indeed it is the wife rather than the husband—than the absent parent. There may be a considerable number of such cases.
As to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, that we are seeing greater equality of incomes between men and women, that is certainly the trend. I welcome it. However, it is wholly irrelevant to the amendment we are discussing where we will be looking at what is the income in an individual case. That is what the amendment is about. So I still think it is an important issue.
It is not a case of whether the tabloid press pick up a particular point or not, but a case of whether or not taking into account the income of the parent in care increases the amount of bitterness in the relationship, perhaps with regard to the degree of personal contact and so on between the two parents.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The noble Lord may be going on to deal with this matter in which case I apologise. What is the noble Lord's response to the point I put to him that under the present scheme—for both simplicity and reasons of basic decency—we are not making any distinction between the biological children and the stepchildren in a second family? Does he accept my argument that if there are stepchildren in the second family—and very often if he joins a new partner he may be joining somebody with a child already, who may herself have been a lone parent in the past—then, as a result of the noble Lord's proposals, in all equity we would have to assess her income in regard to her ability to contribute both to their joint children, to her existing stepchildren and, by definition, possibly also to those of her ex-partner? Does he accept that basic argument? Or is it the cascading domino effect; that, once one goes beyond
1266
the system we have got, we cannot stop short until all incomes have been taken into account for all responsibilities, for all children, in all relationships?
Lord Higgins: I was coming to precisely that point. It relates again to the point I was making about bitterness. From my own experience—after all, if I may presume to say so, I have seen this at the front end—it will be difficult to take into account the extent to which there is bitterness between the stepchildren of a second marriage and all the ramifications that the noble Baroness spelt out. None the less, on the narrower issue, one still needs to take into account the income of both parties in this particular dispute.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: So, under the noble Lord's formula, where the parent with care had an income of under £25,000, we would treat stepchildren and biological children in the second family in the same way; but if the income was £26,000. we would treat them differently?
Lord Higgins: I should like notice of that question. No doubt we can return to it on Report. The noble Baroness has rightly raised the ramifications of the whole issue. But one should not suppose that because one does not deal with all the ramifications in the Bill, they are not real issues on the ground. The views of the stepchildren and so on are extremely vivid, if I may put it that way.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: It is a precise question. Does the noble Lord accept that the implication of the amendment is that the income of the new partner of the former husband—if I may genderise the issue—would now have to be taken into account if there were children in the second family?
Lord Higgins: As I said, I should like to consider that point. I am saying that, from my personal experience, it is certainly a relevant consideration. Of course, the argument the other way concerns the complications that the noble Baroness is constantly arguing against. I do not think that because of the second and third order effects, one should not take into account the first order effect. That is what this amendment is about.
I turn now to what is perhaps the most difficult point to put in politically correct terms. It concerns the point referred to by the noble Baroness who raised the question of the contribution made by the parent with care. I certainly think that one can take that into account. We are not saying that the contributions she makes—whether in kind or in money—should not be taken into account. On the contrary, we think that is so. Amendment No. 26 seeks to deal with that particular point. It states, in particular, that however great her income may be, the contribution of the absent parent should not fall below 50 per cent of what is the formula. We are seeking to adjust that. I gather that a similar system is operated in Australia.
My final point before I sit down—I have spoken far too long—concerns the issue of earned and unearned income. I take the Minister's point that we are not

1267
proposing at the moment to take into account the unearned income of either the parent with care or the absent parent. Of course, there has always been a long-running debate about whether one should call it "unearned" income. I prefer to use the expression "investment" income. I presume that in the context of this amendment we are talking about investment income.
The noble Baroness raised the possibility that perhaps what is not being taken into account is not investment income but income that is unearned and not announced by one of the partners to the agreement. However, there is a strong argument for either accepting the amendment and taking into account both kinds of investment income; or, even if one did not accept the amendment, taking into account the investment income of the absent parent. I do not understand why that is not happening at the moment.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Statistics show that it is not worth it. The only situation in which people are required to come to the CSA is where she is on benefit and, for the most part, he may be on benefit or he may be in work. Other cases are private cases, and those involved in them can make whatever arrangements they wish. Essentially, they would only come to the CSA as a fall-back if there was a dispute. Therefore, if she is on benefit, by definition she cannot have income of more than £3,000, otherwise it would bite into her benefit.
Equally, if she is on benefit and one looks at her income, it would be a very rare situation indeed where she would be partnered by someone who had such a vast income that—given the variation thresholds—his investment income would make a significant difference to the amount to be assessed. If he did have such investment income, one would expect in any such break-up that some of it would have gone over to her as part of the settlement, at which point of course she would no longer be getting benefit anyway and would not be a CSA client.
Lord Higgins: I was rather making the point that one should take into account the investment income of the absent parent, if indeed he has some. I do not understand why that is not so. But that is a relatively narrow point.
We have had a fascinating debate. I am interested in all the views expressed—not least those from the Liberal Democrat Benches. No doubt we shall return to the matter when we come to consider it on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Strabolgi): Before calling Amendment No. 13, I should inform the Committee that, if it is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 14.
[Amendment No. 13 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 14 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I should inform the Committee that, if Amendment No. 15 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 16.
Lord Higginsmoved Amendment No. 15:
Page 89, line 20, leave out sub-paragraph (2) and insert—
("(2) Where the non-resident parent also has one or more relevant other children—

(a) the total number of children cared for shall be calculated in accordance with paragraph (b);

(b) the number referred to in paragraph (a) shall be calculated by adding together the number of qualifying children and the number of relevant other children;

(c) there shall be calculated in accordance with paragraph (d) a sum for deemed child care liabilities;

(d) the amount referred to in paragraph (c) shall be calculated by application of the rates in sub-paragraph (1) to the total number of children cared for;

(e) the basic rate shall be deemed child care liability divided by the number of qualifying children.").

The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 15 is concerned with the total number of children involved in any case. In the foreword to the Green Paper the Prime Minister stated that the system must support families and children. He went on to say that it should be fair to children who will get maintenance they had the right to expect, providing not just financial benefit but tangible proof that they are cared for. We can certainly go along with that proposal. However, in their White Paper the Government said that they would go ahead without discriminating against various categories. That is not what the Government are proposing.
In the Green Paper and in the White Paper two alternatives were offered. Page 10 of the White Paper states that either one would deduct a proportion of the non-resident parent's net income for each of their children in a second family and apply the second rates to the balance or, alternatively, would calculate child support for all the non-resident parent's children in both families and share out the resulting amount according to the total number of children in each family. The amendment seeks to implement the second of those alternatives, avoiding the situation, which the Select Committee was anxious to avoid, of first and second-class children in the second family—those who could count for child maintenance and those who could not. I believe that this issue is worth debating. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: We on these Benches view this amendment with a good deal of sympathy. Under the old legislation the treatment of stepchildren was one of its great failures. I shall not in a hurry forget correspondence from several families in second marriages who were, with some agony, contemplating the prospect that they might have to break up if the legislation was not changed. I shall not forget either the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, playing "the boy stood on the burning deck" when I raised a case where the stepfather was dead and therefore the absent parent was being made to

1269
maintain the household including him. All the noble Lord could say was that the responsibility for maintaining stepchildren is that of their natural fathers. He was not able to change it for circumstances because the legislation did not allow him to. I have rarely been more sorry for a Minister trying to reply to me.
The basic principle that we must bring to this issue is that all children in a household should count equally. The amendment is a serious attempt to achieve that principle. I like what I have seen about it. I shall listen to the Minister's reply to it but with a presumption that the amendment is heading in the right direction. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, for tabling it and for moving it.
Lord Northbourne: I have enormous respect for the noble Earl, Lord Russell, but I feel that I have to raise a contrary issue in the context of this amendment. It troubles me that what the amendment says is that it is okay for the father to walk away from his responsibilities to his first children and to take on another family even if he cannot afford it. That surely flies in the face of any attempt we might be making as a society to say that fathers are responsible for the children they bring into the world.
Earl Russell: The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, is one that I have discussed many times over, especially with the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, when he was Minister. The point he makes has merit on a moral plane, but people have been doing this since the beginning of recorded history. I could give the noble Lord cases from the seventh century, but I do not think that we need bother now. The point is that the children of such unions do exist. The children of such unions have stomachs. They need to be maintained. I do not believe that visiting the sins of the fathers on the children should be a principle which guides action of the state in its legislative capacity. Once one accepts that, however correct is the noble Lord's point on a moral plane, I do not think it should have priority in guiding legislation. Nevertheless, I understand the basis of the noble Lord's concern.
7.15 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Amendment No. 15 seeks to change the way that child support liability is calculated in cases where the non-resident parent has children living with him in a second family. As the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, said, the amendment provides for the non-resident parent's liability to children in his first family to be a proportionate share of his liability for all the children in his first and second families.
That would mean, for example, that where there is liability for one child, with another child in the second family, maintenance would be assessed as 20 per cent of net income with one half—10 per cent—being paid to the parent with care. That differs from our proposals which provide for allowances for children in the second family—of 15, 20 or 25 per cent—to be deducted from the non-resident parent's net income
1270
before his liability for maintenance for his first family is calculated. Under the system that we are proposing, where there is liability for one child, with another child in the second family, the non-resident parent would have 15 per cent of his net income deducted for the child in the second family and the maintenance liability would be estimated therefore as 15 per cent of 85 per cent for the first child in the first family as opposed to 10 per cent of 100 per cent, which is the system proposed by the noble Lord. Those are the differences. The noble Lord proposes 10 per cent for each child. Our system docks 15 per cent of the income and then 15 of the 85 per cent that remains goes to the first child. Those are the two systems. Not surprisingly, the responses came back on a gender basis.
We considered the matter very seriously. Some countries go for one system and some countries go for another. We decided to prioritise the first family because 10 per cent of 100 per cent is less than 15 per cent of 85—it is about 12.5 per cent. In the second family we were taking into account all children. We concluded that there should be no first and second class children and that an allowance should be made in the new system for all children who live with the nonresident parent, including any stepchildren. We also decided that any maintenance which the non-resident parent or his partner might be receiving for their children would be totally ignored. Given, therefore, that we were doing so much more for children in the second family, which I think is right and decent, it seemed also only right that we should give a slight tilt to the first family so that it was not substantially disadvantaged.
An example may help. A father has net earnings of £250 a week. He breaks up with his partner. He is liable for maintenance for one child in the first family and the parent with care receives £37 a week as maintenance. That is the 15 per cent on his £250. He then moves in with a woman with three children whom she has brought from a previous relationship or two—none of them his. Under our system, he would now pay £28 a week compared with the original £37. He would be paying £9 a week less by virtue of the responsibilities for the stepchildren. She would have seen her income as the parent with care drop from £37 to £28 because he had moved in with someone who already had children.
Under the amendment, one would add up the three, add the one, make four, and she would receive only £16 a week. So under the terms of the amendment the parent with care would see her maintenance fall from £37 a week to support the child, on an income of £250, to £16 simply because he had moved in with someone who had several children. If he moved out two years later, still with no children of his own, her income would rise again to £37 a week.
That amount of drop-down, over which she has no control and which depends on what he is doing, what relationships he has moved into, and what children his new partner may have brought into the relationship, leaves her income too fragile to his actions. That is why we have gone for the arrangement in the Bill, with a

1271
slight tilt to the first family. It means that if he, having left that first family, as the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, said, takes on responsibilities for a second family, he does so knowing what his overriding responsibilities for that first family are. It is still decent. We are still recognising, as is not done under the current system, a greater weight for the children in the second family, but we are not suggesting, for example, in the case I gave that the woman's income could possibly be halved because he has temporarily (or possibly permanently) moved in with a woman with several other children.
If we were to follow the terms of the amendment, in all fairness we should have to exclude any deductions in the second family for stepchildren or children that were biologically not his. Otherwise, it would not be fair: the maintenance that the parent in the first family would receive would be dependent entirely on whom he had moved in with and what children she had. I do not believe that that would be right. I believe it is better to treat all children in the second family alike, whether the biological children or the stepchildren of that family. But that means that, in order to protect the first family from too sudden a drop in income, we need to tilt the calculation to the first family, as our proposals do.
I suggest that this is a package. Either Members of the Committee accept our proposals, which tilt to the first family but allow an offset for all children, including stepchildren, in the second family, or we can do as the noble Lord suggests in his amendments and treat the first children in the first family in exactly the same way as the children in the second family; but then, in all decency, the stepchildren would have to be excluded. I believe that the implications of having "first-class" and "second-class" children in the second family taken into account for assessment purposes would be wrong.
Having made extra provision for stepchildren, we thought it only right to protect the children in the first family by giving that extra tilt. I hope that with that explanation the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, stepchildren can exist in both first and second families. In working out the calculations, did the Minister take into account the fact that those stepchildren might be in receipt of child support payments from their own estranged parents?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Yes, that was indeed one of the areas of complexity that we did not want to get into—because, if we did, we should have to see whether the child support was adequate; we should have to chase the income of his new partner's ex-partner's income in order to make that calculation. Either we strip all of this out, on the grounds that the numbers are not worth the pursuit, or we include it all. I accept the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell: either it is all included, or it is stripped right down. There is no middle way.
1272
That was the failure, with the best possible intentions, of the child support system that we inherited. It attempted to apply a formula or rate—which was still too complicated and did not get the money flowing—but then, when the money did not flow, it kept attempting to tinker with the system, which meant that there was even less chance of the money flowing. The result was all the bureaucracy of the formula and none of its simplicity, and all the complexity and unfairness of the courts, and none of the tailored fairness. It seems that we must take one route or the other. It is a perfectly proper question to ask. We have pulled all those calculations out, and we have said that the stepchildren in the first family will not be taken into account; the stepchildren in the second family are taken into account, but in that case we need to protect the parent with care in the first family so that her income for her children is not vulnerable to the person with whom he moves in and the children whom she has brought into the relationship. It is a decent alternative.
We spent a great deal of time on this issue. The reason we went for this alternative rather than the formula suggested by the noble Lord was that, at the end of the day, I did not believe it right to make a distinction between "first-class" children in the second family and "second-class" children in the family, if we start with the well-being of the child, and do not make a distinction between biological and stepchildren in the second family, we must then put some protection in place for the children of the first family. That is why we have tilted the provision in the way that we have.
I am sorry to have given a rather long explanation, but the matter is complicated and technical. At the heart of it is what is in the best interests of all the children. I really do believe that we have got it right. I hope that in the light of the explanation I have given, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Earl Russell: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, replies, I should like to thank the Minister for a carefully considered explanation, which I must read, but shall do so with a great deal of sympathy. Perhaps I may ask her one more question. How, under these proposals, will the system treat children in the household who may be relatives but are not natural or stepchildren? Let us take, for example, nephews and nieces whom a couple are bringing up because their natural parents are dead. Will any account be taken of a case like that?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Yes, it will.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, like the noble Earl, I should like to read the Minister's response. These are rather complicated issues. One needs to sit down and look at them in black and white before one can take a clear view. In considering what the Minister said, I shall be considerably influenced by what has seemed to me a very clear feature of second marriages; namely,

1273
that the second family typically has a higher income than the first family originally had. Frequently the husband's or wife's income has gone up in the meantime, and they are determined—we are back to the point about bitterness—that the first family should have as little as possible. The Minister's statement that the Bill tilts the income away from the second family and towards the first is perhaps to be taken into account.
On the previous amendment the Minister was anxious not to become involved in the matter of stepchildren, the fathers of stepchildren and other such matters. The reality is that in the circumstances she has described the Child Support Agency may well insist that the father of the stepchildren in the second marriage ought to contribute something towards them, and that that ought to be taken into account in assessing how much should be transferred to the first family.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: A gallant try! But in that situation the new partner, because she is with the ex-partner of the first parent, is not on benefit and it is therefore not a matter for the CSA.
Lord Higgins: But she may be.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: How can she be on benefit if she is in a new relationship with him?
Lord Higgins: He is earning.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: He may be earning or he may be on benefit. Let me attempt to explain without using shorthand. The father of the first family, the non-resident parent, is in a relationship with a woman who has children whom she has brought into the relationship. I am asked whether the CSA would have an interest in whether her ex-partner is contributing through child support maintenance to the support of her children whom she has brought into the second family. The point is that the CSA would be required to have an interest only if she, the parent of those children, was seeking benefit. But because she is in a new relationship—with the ex-partner of the first family—she would not be seeking benefit; therefore, the CSA would have no remit, unless, of course, she chose as a private case to come to the CSA.
Lord Higgins: That makes an overwhelming case for reading what the Minister said--subject to any corrections that may be made! On that basis I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Amos: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving this Motion, I suggest that the Committee stage begin again not before 8.30 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Dyslexia
7.30 p.m.
Lord Lairdrose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will ensure that account is taken in education programmes and in the workplace of the particular abilities of those classed as dyslexic.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this evening I. am delighted to have the opportunity to debate a rather misunderstood topic about which I feel strongly: dyslexia. To commence this debate, it is worthwhile underlining exactly what dyslexia is. Dyslexia is a "processing difference" which can take a number of different forms. Unlike other disabilities, it is not obvious but nevertheless can cause individuals all kinds of problems. Most people do not realise just how widespread it is. Dyslexia comes from a Greek word which means "difficulty with words". This is now recognised as a misnomer. Although literary difficulties may be a feature of dyslexia, there is a whole range of associated problems. These include difficulty with memory, and visual or auditory problems which may affect the way in which the dyslexic person performs in the workplace. He may have trouble remembering appointments and understanding instructions. The writing of reports or any kind of written information that requires good literary skills and clear logical thinking may create stress.
For some individuals a large amount of reading may be an overload, often because of visual problems. Often these difficulties are in contrast to specific areas of excellence. Dyslexics can be skilled in verbal communication and have interpersonal skills or visual talents. They can make good designers, draftsmen and engineers, or have skills in dealing with people. While dyslexics are known for their originality of thought, they often feel frustrated by a lack of confidence in some areas. There is a high incidence of dyslexia which is a complex condition that affects a child's whole reading experience, not just the acquisition of literacy and numeracy skills. Increasingly, scientific research points to a neurological base and differences in the parts of the brain that process language. Initially, the condition affects the acquisition of basic reading, writing and spelling skills. Difficulties can be identified as soon as a child starts school because he or she begins to fall behind classmates.
The Government estimate that in the UK 350,000 children suffer from dyslexia. That figure is drawn from a debate in your Lordships' House on 15th December 1997. Dyslexia occurs across the ability spectrum, from the least to the most able. The challenge facing schools is to offer dyslexic children the opportunity to make the best use of their particular strengths. The neurological differences that cause the difficulties associated with dyslexia are also thought to facilitate different ways of thinking. While dyslexia affects up to 10 per cent of the population, within the creative professions the proportion appears to be much higher. Lateral thinking, problem solving, the ability to make creative leaps and to see things from every angle are all skills associated with dyslexia.

1275
Successful dyslexics often believe that even though they had a bad time at school the condition and their response to it has been responsible for their abilities in their chosen fields. Sometimes they speak of having the right information in their heads but an inability to express it clearly either in speech or in writing.
Coping with their own problems can be made worse by other people being unable or unwilling to understand their difficulties. Someone may suffer stress because he does not understand his specific difficulties, yet there are often simple solutions to problems. The mix of competence and inefficiency may make the dyslexic a difficult employee and his problems may act as a barrier to recognition of skill and further promotion. Often the dyslexic feels conscious of his or her problem and is in a dilemma whether to tell colleagues about the condition. The fear of failure and exposure is particularly unsettling.
Modern information and communication technology greatly facilitates dyslexic people. Voice-activated word-processors, computers that can read back and search facilities on the Internet enable the dyslexic to access new information and express himself or herself on paper with greater ease and confidence.
My experiences as a dyslexic at school many, many years ago had a major impact in shaping my life, personality and career. Being small for my age at junior school and considering myself stupid and inarticulate, that period was easily the most dreadful, humiliating, hurtful and loathsome of my life to date. Incidents at the hands of fellow pupils and teachers are burnt into my mind and flood back during unguarded moments to make me still, today, sick with fear and worry. But I have no bitterness towards the school or anyone else. In the 1950s few had heard of the word "dyslexia". I know very well the strategies and tactics that are used to cover these failings and to move on. Many of the ploys are themselves creative, but I believe that for many the lack of self-confidence and self-belief still lingers. I recall the relief 15 or so years ago at the realisation that there was a reasonable explanation for what I considered to be an abnormal and poor school career. In recent years it has been a relief, and also refreshing, to be able to declare oneself to be dyslexic and to offer support to those in a similar position.
Like myself, most of today's dyslexic adults were not diagnosed while at school. Labelled as stupid, thick or lazy, they still have to come to terms with learning but now as adults. Many feel that they have under-achieved in their working lives as a result of an undiagnosed problem. We in this country cannot boost the skills base of our adult population without acknowledging dyslexia and the creative strengths and benefits that adults with this condition can bring to society.
The strides made in understanding dyslexia over the past few decades have been significant, but, in common with many others, I believe that much more must be done. The issue has been addressed at school level with some important results. Clearly, the first step is a process of education for all. We must identify the difficulty and put in place methods to deal with it.
1276
However, I look further. At all levels—in schools and beyond—the general public must be educated to understand the existence of the difficulty and, importantly, to value the role of dyslexics.
Some major work has been undertaken in the field of education. One example of that is the well-documented work in Swansea. There the city and county local authorities have tackled the situation with vision by ensuring high levels of understanding. Nearer my home, schools like the Royal Belfast Academical Institution have done excellent work in developing an approach that is designed to remove dyslexia-driven disadvantages. As a governor of this school your Lordships will understand that I can speak with total objectivity.
To be totally fair, the solutions must be made more applicable to the post-school section of the population. To their credit, the Government have done much but now we must all do more. There is a consensus among organisations to seek easy access to free assessment of adults. Basic skill tutors with specialist qualifications to teach such identified adults must be put in place. Adult learning programmes which offer a full understanding of the condition and its difficulties can then be initiated.
Much important and successful work by the Adult Dyslexia Organisation has been undertaken among employers to ensure best practice at work. A campaign is urgently needed to raise awareness among employers to show that dyslexics can be a vital plus to any creative process and must be valued. A wider programme to achieve understanding among the general public is also important. More than anything, that will help to remove the stigma and, consequently, build self-confidence among sufferers.
Lastly, there is a vital need to devote more resources to research into the causes and remedies of the condition. Here I ask the Minister to consider the significant findings of a research psychologist at the Queen's University of Belfast. Based on work which was started in the United States, Martin McPhillips, in a recent report in the Lancet, examined the effects of replicating primary reflex movements on specific reading difficulties in children. The concept is that certain reading difficulties are related to persistent primary reflexes in the earliest months of life. Research shows that a programme based on releasing these reflexes will help overcome some aspects of dyslexia. I understand that it is a totally new approach which has had significant results. I recommend this research to the Government as worthy of study and consideration.
In today's inclusive society, when collectively we require every talent of all of our people to succeed as well as to liberate more human satisfaction, we overlook dyslexics at our cost. Many famous high achievers from the past were dyslexics. They, we, all have a part to play, and I look with much expectation to the Government for further support and encouragement.
7.40 p.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Laird, for giving us the opportunity for this debate. Dyslexia and its first cousin dyspraxia are pretty common conditions. They were widely undiagnosed in the past but we now have the chance to know how to recognise them. Where people have their eyes open, the conditions are seen to be fairly common. It is in our education system that we have to tackle the issue because that is where the condition can be dealt with. It is no good trying to teach coping strategies to those children when they become adults.
The principal problem in education has been identification. Teachers do not know what to look for. I do not believe that such recognition is yet part of our curriculum in teacher training colleges. A friend's son, aged 17 and in the middle of A-levels, was found to have a reading age of 12. He was a bright child who had developed coping strategies, but a profound dyslexic. It had not been recognised because he had found a way of charming his way through to some desired result. I hasten to say that he was not in the state system.
None the less the problem has been widespread in the state system. Indeed, in some areas there is a bias against identification because of the financial implications for local authorities. As the noble Lord, Lord Laird, said, it has been estimated that there are 350,000 dyslexics in our school population; and one can add a number of dyspraxics to that. Using conventional methods to deal with the condition, the additional cost of providing those children with the educational support they should have would be several hundreds of millions of pounds a year.
Therefore identification should be the first aim; and for the child that is essential. The worst situation is for the child not to know what he is doing wrong. He does not understand why. He feels all right in his head but is being corrected for things which he is incapable of getting right. My son is dyspraxic and therefore finds reading a blackboard immensely difficult because of the way his eyes move. Unless that had been spotted, as it was, when he was about eight years-old, it would have caused him immense difficulty. He was being labelled as one of the "dumbos" of the class because he could not read what was on the blackboard. His eyes did not track that way at that distance.
It is important for the children that the condition is identified. Once the child knows the problem he has, it is rather like knowing that he has a wooden leg—he can deal with it. It is identifiable. He knows why he is what he is. The parents can find sources of information. There are many support groups for dyslexia and dyspraxia. The situation becomes understandable and the child is able to value himself. He knows that he has the disability but is none the less able to cope with life rather than accumulating an immense weight of negative self image. That is what occurs when one does not understand what is happening.
After identification comes assessment. That is an obligation on local authorities. I believe that it is widely recognised as an obligation that they try to
1278
dodge. We have to find a better way for local authorities to finance it. For local authorities to have to hide the moment a child is in need of special educational support in an expanding area like dyslexia must be wrong. It is not the way in which we deal with matters in the National Health Service. We must not expose local authorities—they are the budgetary unit—to this stress. Where there is a diagnosed need, we must ensure that the finances will be provided and that the rest of the educational system does not suffer.
We need to ensure that teachers are well equipped to deal with dyslexics and dyspraxics: that they know the problems that occur with those children; that, for example, inattention is not a matter of opt ion but the way in which the nervous systems of those children are built. Teachers need to know how to deal with the situation so that such inattention does not become a disruption in class or hold up the child's education.
There is a great deal that we know already which we can do better. The noble Lord, Lord Bach, will know that there was a television programme on dyslexia in Scottish prisons. It was discovered that over half the juvenile offenders were dyslexics. They had got nowhere at school although when their IQs were tested they were quite bright. That is a common position throughout the UK and accords with my general experience.
I wish to pick up what the noble Lord, Lord Laird, said about treatment. Reading the dyslexia websites, it seems as though there is a conspiracy to suggest that there is no treatment for this condition; that one can apply palliatives to it, and that there are methods of teaching which will make matters slightly better, but no cure. That is not the case. I have seen children cured of dyslexia. That is not to say that every ca se of dyslexia can be cured. It is a complex disease. There may be many types, degrees or causes of it. But I have seen children cured using the method described by the noble Lord, Lord Laird. It is well established in a number of forms in this country although quite hard to find. I can find no reference to it on any of the main dyslexia websites. It is a great disappointment that the dyslexia industry (as it were) should have decided to turn its back on treatments rather than drawing them to parents' attention and putting pressure on the Government to have those methods evaluated. It costs a great deal of money to evaluate a dyslexia treatment. One has to follow children for a long time, with heavy assessment of them before, during and after the course of the treatment. One needs a fair number of children to achieve a statistically significant result.
Watching the results of the practice described by the noble Lord, Lord Laird, is extraordinary. One can see the fetal and childish reflexes in the way the child reacts to stimuli. A year later they are not there. A child who could not catch a ball thrown gently from six feet away can now play cricket. It is astonishing to see what can be done.
There are other methods too. There are methods— I do not know them closely—associated with colour, attacking and re-educating the nervous system. We should not think of our nervous systern as being

1279
programmed from birth in a specific way. It is an extremely flexible and adaptive instrument. We should be looking for ways to take advantage of it. Faced with the expenditure they are likely to have in relation to dyslexia and dyspraxia, the Government should devote the odd million pounds or so from the several hundreds of millions they are likely to spend on this condition on research for cures. A cure will be a great deal cheaper than the cost of treatment during a child's whole school career.
7.50 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Laird, for raising the issue before the House. I liked the manner in which be brought it forward and the way in which he described the general perception of dyslexia. However, my views are in conflict with those of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, in stating that dyslexia is a disease and that there is a cure. I know he must have expected that reaction. All the research shows that it is a disability with which one can learn to live.
Learning sports encourages one's reflexes to catch a ball and that will deal with certain aspects of dyslexia. Other practices will help, but terms of cure are not appropriate. Research shows that the condition is related to the structure and construction of the brain and nervous system. We may be able to change certain patterns and deal with the process, but, according to most scientific information I have seen, dyslexia is not a condition that can be cured. One can learn to deal with it.
Dyslexia is also surrounded by myths. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, referred to coloured lenses. I tried them and they had a minor effect probably, as someone explained to me, because I also have a secondary condition that is common among dyslexics. It is a common genetic condition which is carried through the generations. Colour sensitivity may be an issue that is explained in those terms. Although we are not debating that, I felt that I had to say that straightaway.
There is a fundamental difference between the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and myself and probably most of the people involved. To say that someone can be cured of dyslexia denies that it is a disability. In fact, everyone involved in the movement has approached it as a disability. It is something that one is born with and which never leaves. If one is moderately dyslexic, one might receive the right tuition and emotional support at an early age and be able to deal with the problem, especially if one is of high intellectual ability. It may be only a minor irritant or may be totally unknown. However, dyslexia is definitely a disability. To ignore that and to suggest that it can be cured opens the door to many other approaches.
Having dealt with that issue, I must declare my interest. I am dyslexic; I am the vice president of the British Dyslexia Association; and I am a patron of the Adult Dyslexia Organisation. I am also president of my local dyslexia association, which my mother
1280
started with the inspiration of myself and my younger brother. The main approach to dealing with dyslexics must be the early detection of the condition, which means recognition within the school system. In that, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. That is the first step.
Can the Minister remind the House how much time is given in basic teacher training to recognising dyslexia and other special needs? I cannot remember the exact statistics, but I remember that the figure was alarmingly low. The condition must be discovered early and the child told that he has a disability. I did not fall down the pit; I only stared into it, because my condition was spotted in time. However, it was at a time when it was only talked about and recognised within the state system. Not enough was known to do anything about it. However, I survived the labelling process.
Early recognition is undoubtedly helpful, but we must try to adopt a more rounded approach. As the noble Lord, Lord Laird, initially said, the problem lies not only with reading and writing. I do not know how many times I have explained that I am dyslexic and people have asked, "Does that mean that you get your Bs and Ds wrong?". People are beginning to recognise the word "dyslexia" and the problems with basic spelling and the construction of words or letters on a page, but the condition is more than that. It affects sequencing, remembering numbers correctly and the organisation of time. Those things do not come easily to dyslexics—as my Whips office will undoubtedly testify!
We must try to work those aspects into our whole approach. In schools and in further education more help is now being given to the structuring of work and managing the disability than to telling someone to go away and take another phonetics course. It is a total waste of time to give a young adult, especially one under pressure of examinations, an extra dollop of work. The same applies to an adult running a business who wants to undertake further training. I have received briefing showing that the Armed Forces are beginning to give help in structuring and managing the problem. That is infinitely more useful.
How many working adults have the time or energy to throw into the training? I suggest very few. Lessons in structuring and managing the problem and an explanation of it will give the person an advantage. Schools can learn greatly from that, and the example of Swansea has been mentioned. However, unless that approach spreads further into the schools and further education system we shall have more problems. We must tackle the problem in a holistic manner.
It is my turn now to have a swipe at bureaucracy. I was told by everyone that, in order to go to university, I had to have an English language qualification. So I dictated my paper in my 0-level examination. If ever there was a useless piece of paper, that was it. You can dictate an English language written examination paper. I hope that the Minister will assure the House that the Government will encourage higher education institutions in the belief

1281
that such a practice is childish and can be destructive to development. It is a little like saying to someone in a wheelchair, "Go and do a cross-country run". Nothing is achieved. You can, as I did, get someone to carry you around the course, but it means nothing. I hope that the Minister will assure the House that such information and guidance will be issued.
The "growth industry" of the discovery of dyslexia in prisons surprises no one who gives the matter a second thought. If you happen to be an educational failure and crime is an option to you or your peer group, you will probably take it if you are denied the usual prospects of employment. I discovered that when I worked for a prison charity, the Apex Trust, many years ago. I reached that spontaneous conclusion, only to discover that many people had done so before me. There is good practice in prisons, but it has been described to me as being like a dessert which has one or two oases within it. Examples of good practice are occurring across the Prison Service, but I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us that the service as a whole is undertaking to provide coherent guidance across the board in order to ensure that people have access to help and support. That has a huge potential for ensuring that people escape the offending cycle by making themselves employable. That must be taken on board and I hope that the noble Lord will be able to do so.
We are dealing with a disability whose ramifications affect about 10 per cent of the population. Four per cent of people are regarded as having severe educational problems. The ramifications spread throughout life, not just within the schools system. I hope that tonight we shall hear further commitment to following the problem not only through the schools system but into the place of work and to all those who are given further training.
8 p.m.
Baroness Blotch: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Laird, for initiating this debate on the important subject of dyslexia. At this point, I must say also how much I believe many noble Lords will miss Lord Renwick, who is an excluded hereditary Peer. As noble Lords know, he took a special interest in, and spoke in this House on, this subject. I am delighted to say that he continues to be involved with the British Dyslexia Association.
As has already been said, dyslexia is a complex condition. It is estimated by the British Dyslexia Association that it affects approximately 10 per cent of the population, and it would appear to be more common in males than in females. The condition affects in varying degrees co-ordination, reading, spelling, writing, memory, concentration and the processing of information. There is some evidence that dyslexia is an hereditary condition. However, we know—here I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Addington—that it continues throughout life. As the noble Lord, Lord Laird, said, many people with the condition can and often do display creative, artistic and other practical skills.
1282
The challenges are to identify the condition as early as possible and to develop strategies to help overcome those areas of difficulty. As already stated, the Government's own estimate of the number of children who are dyslexic is 350,000; that is, approximately 20 per cent of all children with special educational needs. I understand that the British Dyslexia Association agrees with that figure.
However, that number probably accounts for only those who are formally statemented Of real concern are the children whose condition falls short of the criteria for a formal statement. If one takes the population as a whole, it is estimated that 4 per cent are severely affected and up to 10 per cent have milder forms of the condition, which can still present problems. If the individual has not developed practical ways and strategies to overcome difficulties, those problems become exacerbated as time progresses.
Again, as has already been said, the key is early identification and appropriate intervention. Ofsted carried out a survey of provision in mainstream schools for pupils with special educational needs, including dyslexia. In its report published last year, Ofsted confirmed that, where their learning difficulties were identified and addressed early, pupils made better progress than those who received additional help at a later stage, often just before they transferred to a secondary school.
In many local education authorities, it was common, for example, for pupils with dyslexia to be identified at stages 1 to 3 of the special educational needs register in the primary school and for a statement to be produced only during the final year in preparation for secondary school. One reason for that given by Ofsted was that there was perhaps a reluctance on the part of teachers to admit that the school could not meet pupils' needs from within its provision for special educational needs.
The report also found that all too often provision was made only as a result of pressure from parents who were left to convince schools and/or local education authorities of their children's difficulties. Parents also complained about the time taken to carry out assessments and to issue appropriate statements. Among many parents interviewed by Ofsted was a strong feeling that all that resulted in the loss of valuable time during which the behavioural problems of the children increased, learning deteriorated and there was a significant lowering of the child's self-esteem and confidence.
Regular assessment and testing that came with the introduction of the national curriculum provides the early warnings necessary for teachers to identify learning difficulties. However, as my noble friend Lord Lucas said, there are many other innate signs for the teacher to spot before those formal assessments are made. Other tell-tale symptoms often include a disruptive pattern of behaviour or signs of withdrawal from the normal activities with other children within the classroom.
Although the national literacy strategy is of considerable benefit to children with specific learning difficulties, some pupils' educational needs call for

1283
supplementary additional approaches. However, for too long it was unfashionable to admit to the condition of dyslexia—it was often referred to as the "middle-class disease"—in part due to the more discerning parents who would complain persistently and regularly about the problems experienced by their children.
However, there is now widespread agreement that dyslexia exists. Interestingly, more and more celebrities and well-known national figures have talked openly of their own difficulties of growing up with the problem and the various ways in which they were, or, indeed, were not, helped while at school. All that has helped to raise the profile of dyslexia and to emphasise the importance of early identification and intervention.
Having said that, there are still examples—we have heard about them tonight from the noble Lord, Lord Laird—of children being bullied and accused of being "stupid", "thick" or "brainless" by other children. Apart from the requirement of schools to have a robust policy to deal with bullying for whatever reason, dealing with the root cause of learning difficulties will do more to resolve the problem and to restore self-esteem and self-confidence.
My understanding is that awareness and early assessment of dyslexia were addressed by the Teacher Training Agency when it was set up. It would be extremely cost-effective to provide not only special needs teachers but all teachers in their initial and subsequent training with the skills to deal with pupils who have problems of co-ordination and learning to read. That is so, first, because the incidence of children who are dyslexic exists in most schools and, the British Dyslexia Association would argue, also in most classrooms, particularly at primary school level. Secondly, disruption levels in the classroom are reduced by resolving learning difficulties early, and that makes the life of a teacher less fraught. Thirdly, successful intervention at an early stage will reduce the number of statements which are required by pupils. That, in turn, will release more resources for schools. It would prove a virtuous circle, and it may be possible for the Minister to bring us up to date on the content of teacher training courses.
Again, as has already been mentioned, the District Auditor and the British Dyslexia Association have singled out Swansea local education authority for the way in which it allocates monies to special education, both within its budget and through the application of GEST funding. As I understand it, Wales does not yet have a standards fund. Swansea LEA had a high number of children with statements and a high level of dissatisfaction from parents with regard to its policy and attitude towards dyslexia.
Based on the outcome of a forum of parents, teachers, special educational needs advisers and education psychologists to discuss provision for pupils with dyslexia, Swansea produced a guide to dyslexia-friendly education. It has made funding available to schools for the special educational needs of children, both statemented and non-statemented. Children are
1284
systematically assessed. In the first instance, the assessment concentrates on reading and writing skills. Following diagnosis, the intensity of support needed is determined. That leads to focused, timely and appropriate provision.
Every member of staff is expected to understand dyslexia. By 2001, it is intended that every school will have a specialist dyslexia teacher. Again, that will benefit all children; not only those with dyslexia. Three years on, Swansea has reduced quite significantly the number of children with dyslexia who require statements for special education, and I understand that parental satisfaction has been restored.
Getting things right in school for today's children will remove many of the problems that people with dyslexia experience in later life. However, there are still too many adults who were not diagnosed at an early stage and who continue to experience problems. Under-achievement is a common feature. From my time as a Home Office Minister, I know that a disproportionate number of people in our prisons and on probation programmes have dyslexia-related problems.
Again, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Addington, that impressive work is undertaken by professionals and by the voluntary sector; for example, by SOVA (the Society of Voluntary Associates) and by the Adult Literacy Basic Skills Unit, which I believe has recently changed its name. An enormous amount of research and development work has also been undertaken using technology. I remember in particular an effective experimental project for teaching children with dyslexia by the Harris City Technology College, in conjunction with Canterbury University. There was an extremely innovative use of technology in that instance. It would help to know from the Minister whether the number of tutors with specialist qualifications to teach dyslexic adults is increasing. What arrangements are in place for adults with dyslexia to gain access to appropriate courses? What evaluation has there been of innovative research in the field of dyslexia?
The Disability Discrimination Act 1995 provided some legal protection for adults, although dyslexia is not specifically listed as a disability. However, the DfEE's code of practice issued in 1996 envisaged circumstances in which dyslexia would count as a disability for the purposes of that legislation. Does the Minister have any information as to how the Act is working in that respect?
The importance of addressing the issue of assessment, education and training for people of all ages with dyslexia cannot be overstated because 10 per cent of the population with the condition represents a considerable waste of skill and talent to the country as a whole. For that reason, I want to thank most warmly the noble Lord, Lord Laird, for the opportunity he has created for this debate.
8.10 p.m.
Lord Bach: My Lords, the whole House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Laird, for tabling this

1285
Question and giving the House an opportunity to discuss dyslexia today. It affects 4 per cent of the population, with a further 6 per cent displaying some dyslexic traits. The House will remember for a long time the noble Lord's moving account of his childhood. He made it clear that he was not just talking about his childhood but also that of many others who face the same problems. The House is very grateful to him.
I begin by assuring the noble Lord and the House of the Government's awareness of dyslexia and specific learning difficulties. I am grateful to him for giving the Government some credit for what they have achieved so far. That is in no small part due to the positive and constructive working relationship we have with those organisations which support children and adults with dyslexia, such as the organisations we have heard about today; namely, the Dyslexia Institute, the British Dyslexia Association and the Adult Dyslexia Organisation.
First, I would like to deal with our education programmes in attempting to answer the terms of the noble Lord's Question. All children have a right to an education that enables them to develop their full potential. The Government have clearly demonstrated their commitment to raising standards in education for all children, including those with special educational needs and/or disabilities.
We are committed to early identification and assessment of special educational needs of any kind, and I shall mention some of the practical steps we are taking.
As has been said in the debate, it is of course particularly important that teachers are aware of the needs of children who have, or may be at risk of developing, special educational needs of any kind. Newly qualified teachers since September 1998 have to show that they can identify pupils who have special educational needs, including dyslexia. After qualification, teachers are required to complete an induction year, which gives them an opportunity to hone the skills they have developed during their initial teacher training. In-service teacher training in relation to dyslexia is specifically mentioned in the eligibility criteria for the department's standards fund grants for SEN teacher training. All local education authorities receive those grants which are calculated on a formula basis and each LEA receives an approved expenditure allocation against which the department pays 50 per cent grant. In-service teacher training is supported through the department's standards fund. This year, we are supporting £26 million of local education authority expenditure on the professional development of all those working with children with special needs, thereby ensuring that that is seen as a priority.
We are working with the voluntary organisations to raise awareness; for example, the joint development of a poster providing hints for primary school teachers to help them identify those pupils with dyslexia. I have a copy of that in my hand. That clearly sets out the
1286
possible areas of weakness which could indicate dyslexia, while recognising that the child has areas of ability as well as weakness.
The department has also provided a grant to help the British Dyslexia Association produce a schools resource pack entitled Achieving dyslexia friendly schools which refers to the efforts made in Swansea which have been referred to by a number of noble Lords in this debate. Over 20,000 copies have been distributed to schools and local education authorities. That pack promotes a "whole school" approach to supporting pupils with dyslexia, and provides examples of best practice.
In July 1999 a seminar was held to bring together representatives from the main government departments and agencies, schools, LEAs, researchers, academics and the main dyslexia organisations to exchange views on the key educational issues in the areas of dyslexia. There was much common ground and a strong sense of shared purpose. Ways in which individual expertise and resources can be pooled were identified, and a consensus reached over a shared agenda for tackling issues in the areas of early identification, teacher training, and the use of information communications technology. The seminar has provided an excellent springboard for further action and an informal working group has been set up to take matters forward.
The DfEE, the National Lottery Charities Board and WH Smith are funding a two-year "Spell It" study programme to evaluate literacy learning through an individualised tuition research project run by the Dyslexia Institute to evaluate the effects of structured programmes of intervention. The project is targeted at seven year-old pupils who are experiencing specific difficulties in learning to read, write and spell. Two key aspects of the project are to develop activities that parents can do at home and to share more widely the knowledge and skills of specialist teachers.
It is also important that gifted children who have dyslexia are not overlooked. The Excellence in Cities initiative includes a gifted and talented children strand which will improve the education of up to 40,000 pupils, some of whom will have learning difficulties, including dyslexia. Pupils in 470 maintained secondary schools across 24 local education authorities in England will benefit. That programme is designed to support academically able pupils and those with talents in sport and the arts, including those who may be underachieving. We would expect schools to design teaching and learning programmes for such pupils which take account of their needs.
My remarks so far have focused on the schools sector. I would now like to say a few words about further and higher education. Within further education, the Further Education Funding Council (FEFC) must have regard to the needs of people with learning difficulties, including dyslexia, in carrying out its key functions to secure further education. At local college level, this translates into individual FE colleges being able to obtain additional funding to provide any additional support required. For a dyslexic this may take the form of a note taker.

1287
Last year's report on adult literacy and numeracy from the working group chaired by Sir Claus Moser highlighted the needs of adults with learning difficulties or disabilities, and made a specific reference to those who suffer from dyslexia. The report called for a special study into the issue, aimed at assessing how far the working group's recommendations for basic literacy and numeracy were relevant to this other group of learners and what supplementary provision they might require. We set up a working group for that purpose last September. Membership comprises representatives of the key national organisations in relation to adults with learning difficulties or disabilities.
In this context it may be appropriate to mention the Prison Service. The DfEE has discussed with the Prison Service and the Home Office a number of issues involving the implications of the Moser Report. I shall certainly ensure that the request of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, is brought to the attention of colleagues in the Home Office as to the important part that he believes that that can play in this area.
We await the report from the working group, which should be with us fairly shortly. It will include a section relating to the needs of adults with dyslexia.
The Learning and Skills Bill, which, as many noble Lords will remember, recently completed its passage through this House, will draw together responsibilities for further educational and adult and community education under one body; namely, the learning and skills council. We believe that that approach will better serve the needs of people with learning difficulties, including dyslexia, and will enable a broader range of provision to be considered when looking at how the needs of an individual with learning difficulties may he met.
Of course, it is widely accepted that dyslexia need not be a bar to achievement in higher education. All higher education institutions in the UK admit dyslexic students and evidence suggests that the number of students with dyslexia has increased over recent years.
The noble Lord, Lord Laird, called for more research into the causes of and remedies for dyslexia. He knows that there are always many competing demands for research funds. The SEN research component of the department's extensive research programme was developed through consultation with key stakeholders, including major SEN voluntary organisations, university education departments and those responsible for policy development in that area.
The current research programme reflects the priorities that I have identified in the course of that consultation process—consultation with others such as the Department of Health, teacher training agencies and Ofsted. It is important that in a complex area such as dyslexia, policy development is informed by the latest thinking in terms of research findings. Therefore, we are particularly grateful to the noble Lord for drawing our attention to the recent report by Martin McPhillips, published in the Lancet.
1288
On employment issues, as noble Lords know, the employment provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 were brought into force in December 1996. A person with dyslexia can be covered by the Act's provisions. Under the Act, a code of practice was published in 1996 which provides practical guidance to employers. The code includes examples of adjustments that employers may make for people with dyslexia, and explains other ways in which the Act's provisions may affect them.
However, we are aware that discrimination against disabled people in the workplace persists, and that that includes discrimination against people with dyslexia. We are tackling the problem in a number of ways, including by setting up the Disability Rights Commission, which opened for business at the end of last month and marks a major step towards fulfilling our manifesto commitment to comprehensive and enforceable civil rights for disabled people.
Last year we launched the "See the Person" campaign. Promoting awareness and good practice amongst employers is essential. Legislation must go hand in hand with changes in attitudes to disability if discrimination is to be eradicated and opportunities improved. A recent employment tribunal case shows the sort of attitudes that need changing. A factory worker was bullied by his colleagues because of his dyslexia, which his managers did nothing to stop. The tribunal decided that he was discriminated against because of his disability and he was awarded £28,000.
The "See the Person" campaign includes TV, press and radio advertisements, press articles, and publicity organised through employers' associations. It advertises the DRC's helpline, which provides good practice advice on employment issues and can refer callers to specialist organisations, such as the Dyslexia Institute, for specialist advice.
Help may also be available for employees with dyslexia through the Employment Service Access to Work programme. That could take the form of IT equipment, speech software and voice recognition systems. I am also aware that the Adult Dyslexia Organisation has produced an in depth Guide on Employment, providing full details on ways of accommodating dyslexia in the workplace, contributors to which included the Employment Service, the TUC and the Employers Forum on Disability.
In a fairly short time I have attempted to cover what the Government are doing in the education and the employment fields. If I have failed to answer any specific questions, I promise to write to noble Lords, and particularly to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, with the answers to their questions. I shall place copies in the Library.
I conclude by thanking the noble Lord for raising this debate and for the contributions made by all noble Lords. We have had a wide-ranging debate and we have covered many issues. Of course, it is always right to celebrate the abilities of those with dyslexia. I hope that the Government's commitment and practical approach to education and employment issues will

1289
continue to improve the quality of life for everyone who has special needs or a disability and build on their strengths.
Lord Burlison: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.30 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.26 p.m. to 8 30 p.m.]

Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill
House again in Committee on Schedule 1.
[Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 not moved.]
Earl Russellmoved Amendment No. 18:
Page 89, line 37, leave out from ("less") to end of line 41.
The noble Earl said: Today I am slightly more fortunate in my timing than when I moved this amendment in 1991. I moved the amendment and then divided the House at 10 minutes to midnight with my Chief Whip standing at the Bar, beaming at me like a bishop giving the blessing. I hope that I shall not have to do it again, but the principle of this amendment is of some importance.
The amendment seeks to delete the requirement to pay a flat rate of £5 binding on those receiving benefits of a prescribed kind. A "prescribed kind" is the usual open-ended phrase used by the department when it might want to do anything. Effectively, it refers mainly to people on income support or jobseeker's allowance. We are told that those are subsistence benefits—although of late that phrase has been heard less often. Another amendment to be moved later will address this point, but in fact there is no estimate available of the minimum needs necessary for good health. Many other countries calculate such an estimate, but we do not. But at least it is clear that income support and jobseeker's allowance do not provide any substantial surplus over minimum needs.
Deductions from income support should be made very sparingly indeed. Already such deductions are used quite heavily to pay for gas bills, water bills, court fines and God knows what else. We all know of the Acheson report. That report stated that the level of income support was insufficient to maintain good health. The consequences of that may be quite serious. The Medical Research Council work on low birth weight is known by repute to many of us. It states:
"Inadequate nutrition can impair cognitive development and is associated with educational failure among impoverished children. Nutrition early in life has a big impact on the development of the brain".
By inflicting further hardship on people receiving income support or jobseeker's allowance, we may be facing longer term consequences of quite considerable severity.
I do not understand exactly what useful purpose is served by such an adamant insistence on a flat rate payment of £5. I am sure that we shall again hear from
1290
the Minister much of what we heard on the amendment concerning the parent with care who is rich; namely, about the abstract principle. On occasion there is much to be said for abstract principles, but when those abstract principles cause real and gross hardship to people who are already suffering enough of it, without providing any substantial compensating benefit, then I tend to wonder whether that principle is perhaps mistaken.
Successive governments, in adhering to this flat rate £5 deduction from those on income support. have been inflicting a quite unnecessary degree of hardship and have been achieving nothing for it. It' they are that determined to continue with this requirement, then they will have to increase income support levels above the rate of inflation in proportion. At present I can see no sign that the Government will be willing to do that.
I have reminded the Minister of what happened when I moved a similar amendment in 1991. I shall not repeat that tonight, but I cannot answer for what might happen during later stages of the Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Originally, Amendments Nos. 18, 19, 20 and 23 were grouped together, because they all deal with the same matter. However, I see that the noble Earl is signalling otherwise. Amendment No. 18—from the Liberal Democrat Benches—seeks to establish that there should be no deduction from benefit for maintenance, including those people who currently have £5.20 deducted from JSA and IS. In particular, the amendment seeks to remove all references to cases where the non-resident parent or their partner is in receipt of a prescribed benefit, pension or allowance and leave only those whose income is £100 or less—those not receiving benefit—to be required to pay maintenance.
Briefly, I should like to make three points. First, people on JSA and income support pay a contribution towards child maintenance. At present that contribution is £5.20. In the future we propose that it will be a flat rate of £5. Secondly, unlike at present where the £5.20 charge goes straight to the Treasury, in future the £5 will go directly to the child so that the child will share in the father's income, as it would if that family were an intact family and the father was claiming jobseeker's allowance and looking for work. I think that it is right that parents with care who are themselves on modest incomes can expect to see a contribution from the non-resident parent, whether it is £5 if he is on benefit, up to £10 if she is on benefit and he is in work or the full amount if both parents are in work.
The reasoning behind this is not only because we think that it is better for the child if he or she knows that he or she is receiving support from the absent parent and not only because we wish to continue the practice of the existing system, but also because we know from figures of those on IS and JSA—in particular young men on JSA, the main benefit we are discussing here—that around two-thirds of those

1291
young men will be in work within six months. Three-quarters will find work within 12 months. I refer also to research from Australia that has been quoted in the House on previous occasions. We know that unless the habit of making maintenance payments is set up fairly quickly after separation, it becomes increasingly difficult to collect that money. People must be encouraged into the mindset that states that if their relationship breaks down, they must expect to pay maintenance.
We know that most young people on JSA will be back in work within six months or at most a year. If we have not established the habit of making maintenance payments—a responsibility that goes along with the need to pay any arrears on rent, repaying social fund payments and so forth—then such young people are less likely to carry on making payments once they are back in work. For that reason, we are holding to the broad position of the previous administration on this, but reducing the rate from £5.20 to £5, ensuring that the benefit goes directly to the child and, lastly, continuing to support the principle that the need to establish the habit of making payments must be done early so that when that person moves into work, maintenance will continue to be paid. In the light of these points, I hope that the Committee will not support the amendment.
Earl Russell: The Minister has invoked the matter of encouraging the habit of making payments. Before I respond, can she tell me what proportion of those presently assessed to pay the £5.20 actually pay it?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The best statistics that I can offer the noble Earl is that of those who should be paying, around half of them do so.
Earl Russell: That does not strike me as a particularly convincing habit. Does the Minister wish to respond?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: That is not out of order with the statistics we inherited as regards those who were in work when we came into office. In 1997 we found that only around 30 per cent paid all the maintenance due, 30 to 40 per cent paid part of their maintenance, and the rest paid nothing at all. The mindset that payment was required was broken for everyone, whether or not they were in work—especially the self-employed. Those who paid regularly tended to be divorced, never had a continuing commitment to their children and recognised their obligations to that extent. While I entirely accept the noble Earl's point that the habit of maintenance has not been well established, that is something the system is designed to change.
The other factor that has affected getting the money flowing has been the inability of Benefit Agency computers to talk to CSA computers. When a young person, for example, changes his benefit status, that may be recorded on BA computers but the CSA has to be informed manually. Our inability to obtain
1292
accurate statistics is criminal. All the statistics that I give have an associated health warning. The new system will not only see that the money goes to children but will be associated with robust IT systems that should provide an accurate snapshot of the individual's benefit status.
Earl Russell: The Minister knows perfectly well why I believe that so little of the money assessed under the 1991 and 1995 Acts has actually come in. In a great many cases, parents have been assessed to pay sums that are more than they can possibly pay—which instantly breaks the habit of payment before it has been instilled. The figures that the Minister has just given are simply another subset of that mistake. If those individuals had been allowed the six months that the Minister invoked, until they had an income, they would have picked up the habit of payment perfectly easily. It is the usual story of the Treasury shooting itself in the foot.
I know perfectly well that the Minister thinks otherwise, but I am entitled to say to her that which she said to me earlier. I accept that she believes these things, but it does not follow that I have to do so. I do not. I accept that the money will go directly to the children, which is a good thing. But the money can only go to the children if it is actually there. The difficulty of living on income support is so considerable that it may not always happen. When the Minister described income support as a modest income, she was carrying euphemism to something near its outer limits. If the Minister had increased benefit levels by 20 per cent, I would have found the whole of her argument persuasive. I do not see that as an immediate prospect. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment—but it is not the last that we shall hear of this issue.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 19 and 20 not moved.]
Baroness Buscombemoved Amendment No. 21:
Page 90, line 10, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
("(a) is a student in full-time education at an educational establishment in the United Kingdom; or").
The noble Baroness said: With this, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 22.
These probing amendments are designed to clarify why the Government want powers to exempt various of non-resident parents—so-called proscribed descriptions—from their duty financially to support their children. The two categories in our amendments have been taken directly from the Explanatory Notes. Both are disturbing.
We recognise and support the Bill's powerful theme that parents should be required to make a contribution to the upkeep of their children and to recognise the financial consequences of their actions, not take for granted that the taxpayer—someone else working hard to meet his or her responsibilities—should pick up the tab.

1293
We recognise also that the Bill takes account of persons who, with little resources, will make a minimum payment of £5. Do the Government intend to allow all who choose to enter full-time higher education or who find themselves in prison to abrogate entirely their responsibilities for their children?
We know that many students need to take out loans to pay their fees and maintenance but many work. Most noble Lords can attest to that. I concede that under this government, funding one's way through full-time education is much tougher—except for those attending full-time education in Scotland, as we heard earlier from my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour.
What is more important—the pursuit of personal academic achievement or acceptance of responsibility, in however small a way, for one's own child? The Minister in another place, in response to a similar amendment, made much of the income of students and the number of student parents who account for the CSA's current workload. Those issues are irrelevant. Whether or not the numbers are small is also irrelevant. Either the Government are serious about requiring parents to meet their responsibilities or they are not. It worried me when the Minister said earlier in defence of ignoring minority cases in relation to Clause 1, "It is not worth it". Surely principle matters as well as practice.
On Second Reading, the Minister confirmed that 30 per cent of parents pay nothing towards the upkeep of their children. The noble Baroness said that reform of the formula of the benefits system will provide incentives for parents to co-operate. We support reform that will incentivise responsibility but believe that the clause will do entirely the opposite. It will provide more opportunities for those wishing to negate their responsibilities. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: I do not wish to appear behind the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, in my adherence to principle. The question is, which is the relevant principle? The guiding principle throughout our discussions has been doing the best thing for the children, although we have not always agreed on what that was. The question is even clearer for students than for people on income support. Most students have a lower income than if they were on income support—so if they are assessed to pay, they can-not do so.
I once had a pupil who was assessed by the CSA because she became the partner of a man who was assessed by the agency. Finally, the CSA decided that the assessment was in error and it was withdrawn. Had that not been done, my pupil would have had no option but to withdraw from her education. That is the only effect of requiring students to contribute. They cannot live on the money provided and need extra earnings, to the great detriment of their work, to cope. If they withdraw from education, their long-term earnings may be significantly lower—so the money going to the children would be considerably less.
The Minister might argue that such persons must pay immediately and give up their prospects. One could argue that is in the interests of the children. It is
1294
a difficult argument to make but not totally impossible. If the noble Baroness wishes to make that argument, she needs to come clean and say that is exactly what she is doing. Then we could discuss the matter on a real and serious basis. But to suggest that people should, at one and the same time, be students and pay maintenance under the CSA is not to be in the real world.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am slightly baffled. I did not understand the meaning of the amendment in the way that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, did. I shall be grateful if the noble Baroness will interrupt if I have misunderstood, but I thought that this amendment sought to remove a general power to prescribe, in regulations, categories of non-resident parents who would have a nil-rate liability and to confine it to the very group to which the noble Earl, Lord Russell, referred; that is, students, prisoners and those with a net weekly income of less than £5.
According to my advice, that is what the amendment means. If that is not the intention of the noble Baroness, I shall be grateful if she will let me know. I understood her to be confining the nil-payment groups to students and prisoners.:I was going to argue that a few other groups need to be included in that category. If she is indeed doing what the noble Earl fears she may be doing—that is, saying that nobody is exempt—I should like to have that elucidated.
Baroness Buscombe: I am sorry if I did not make myself clear. I am trying to encourage the Minister to clarify what the Government's intention is. Is there a list of prescribed people'? If so, who are they? We are taking the examples direct from the Explanatory Notes. In themselves we find them disturbing and I am happy to respond to the noble Earl in relation to escaping the real world; there is something very real about having children. But I ask the Minister to concentrate on clarifying what the clause intends.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I shall do my best. I shall not describe what I believe to be the effect of the amendments but come back to the intention of the Bill.
The Bill proposes to prescribe for a group of people that they should have a nil maintenance liability. The first group of those would be students. I understand around 1,500 students are non-resident parents. We are proposing that, given that their income is loan based, for these purposes they should be regarded as having a nil income that is assessable for child support purposes. I believe the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and I agree on that.
The second group we are proposing should have a nil maintenance liability are prisoners, for fairly obvious reasons; that is, that they are imprisoned and have no access to earnings. The other categories that we have in mind to prescribe are persons receiving an allowance in respect of work-based training for young people or, in Scotland, skill seeker's training. But I cannot help the noble Baroness in relation to numbers in that regard; we do not possess any useful figures.

1295
The next group we are proposing to exclude from maintenance liability are 16 and 17 year-olds in receipt of income support or income-based job seeker's allowance. We believe there to be around 40 nonresident parents who are 16 or 17 year-olds in that category. We are proposing to exclude a child as defined under Section 55 of the Act. We are proposing to exclude a person in hospital who is receiving income support pocket money at the higher or standard rate which, as Members of the Committee will be aware, is a very modest sum (again, I cannot put a figure to that) and the 60 or so persons in residential care or nursing homes who either have their fees paid in full or in part by the local authority or are in receipt of a benefit which would normally attract a £5 flat rate liability.
That need not be an exhaustive list. But at the moment that is the list we are proposing to prescribe for. In all cases, they either clearly have no income or, alternatively, so few, as possibly with students, have any serious alternative income that it is not worth the hassle.
The noble Baroness criticised me saying that I said something along the lines that a parent with care's income was not worth it. I had that as number two or three in my shopping list of reasons. My first reason was equity and fairness, which the parent with care is already paying in kind. It seems to me that if I can show that something is not only not fair, but also not worth it in terms of administrative simplicity, then we have two good arguments and not just one. I was certainly not thinking simply in terms of mechanical expediency.
Why are we doing this in regulations? Having the ability to prescribe in regulations provides us with the flexibility to add or amend categories where necessary and to reflect changes in other legislation. A simple transparent scheme is the only way to ensure that children receive the support they deserve. But the maintenance levels must be fair and reasonable. We are therefore seeking to exempt from those categories those who have no income. However, for the rare exception where there may be a mature student who has earnings or savings of the sort the noble Baroness might have in mind, parents with care will still be able to apply for a variation. Where a non-resident parent with a nil-rate liability, because they fall into a prescribed category, has nonetheless significant income or capital, the parent with care will still be able to apply for a variation.
Let me give an example. Somebody may have been in work, had savings and so forth and then decides to do an MBA for a year. They become a student. They have a nil-rate liability. But the former partner knows perfectly well that they have substantial savings and income, some of which can reasonably be used to support the child. Or someone may have been in work and stopped work to become a student and therefore their maintenance liability stops. In that situation, the parent with care can then go to the tribunal and seek a variation on the grounds analogous to, "He is declaring £100 a week but is living on £500 a week and therefore I should like my child maintenance assessed
1296
as though his income were £500 a week". It comes into one of the two categories that I explained earlier; that is, the first being child-related expenses and the second where the income as reported is not a fair reflection of his true financial position.
Should there be those few exceptions—we do not accept there are many—of either a mature or exceedingly rich student, then the parent with care will be able to apply for variation. But basically we are seeking to cut out of our trawl all of those who have no income to provide and at the same time seek to do it by regulations so that, if there should be other groups that I can conceive of that might fall within that category a year or two down the line, then we would have power to include them. It would then be up to your Lordships as to whether or not the House wanted, by affirmative regulation, to add to the proposals.
I hope with the explanation that there is a good reason for doing it—that they have a nil income or in the rare case where there may be an income the parent still has the right to apply for a variation—the noble Baroness will agree that we have got the balance right in terms of simplicity, but with the possibility of variation in those rare circumstances where a student may have significant income or savings. Of the 1,500 students who are in this category, I should be surprised if 40 of those had an income or savings that would bring them into a significant calculation. But if that is the situation, then there is recourse to variation and that was designed to cover precisely those situations; for example, where someone reduces their income and transfers it all into capital to be exempt.
I hope with that attempted explanation the noble Baroness will feel reassured and able to withdraw her amendment.
Earl Russell: I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, and to the Committee for having so seriously misunderstood her. I was trying to listen to her argument and to find the passage to which she referred in the Explanatory Notes at the same time. I did not succeed in letting my left ear know what my right hand was doing, and I am sorry.
I found the Minister's explanation entirely persuasive and reasonable. I should like to ask her just one more question. In this category, is she proposing to prescribe asylum seekers?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I confess that I have not addressed my mind to that situation. If we think about it, asylum seekers are either families or single people. I can conceive where an asylum-seeking family splits up. But if the asylum seeker has nil income—I can hardly expect him to send over, say, 10 per cent of his vouchers—what will happen is that the one family will be treated, for asylum seeking purposes and vouchers, as a single person and a family. As we know, if their case is not expedited within six months, they fall back onto the benefit system.

1297
In all seriousness—I should not tease the noble Earl about this—I find it hard to envisage that circumstance arising. But I shall reflect on it and if I can add anything further to that answer, I shall write to the noble Earl.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, raised the subject of students in Scotland not having to pay tuition fees. In view of the fact that students in Scotland will be paying tuition fees on a deferred basis—that is, when they start earning more than £10,000 a year—Will those payments be taken into account when child support payments are being calculated?
9 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: This may be my folly, but we are talking here not about liability for tuition fees but for loans for maintenance. I am not making a distinction for these purposes between Scottish and English students.
Earl of Mar and Kellie: Perhaps I can rephrase the question. When a Scottish student subsequently pays tuition fees on the deferred scheme, which we have now enacted, will those deferred payments be taken into account when the CSA payments are considered?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: There is no intention to backdate, any more than somebody taking up work would be backdated for payments they had not made, if they are on benefit. The payment will begin at the point that liability commences, when there is an income.
I have received some very helpful information in response to the question raised by the noble Earl, Lord Russell about asylum seekers. As they are not habitually resident, they do not therefore have any subsequent liability.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for her explanation. I am very grateful for her reference to the variation orders. I do feel, however, that there is an inconsistency with the previous amendment. The Minister said that it was important to get people into the habit of paying maintenance. It is difficult to equate the two statements. There will be situations where students and those in prison, for example, can negate their responsibility, and they will not get into the habit of paying maintenance due to their circumstances. They have no income, but they have a responsibility, the most important responsibility on this earth, in my view, and that is for children.
I accept the apology made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and I apologise for not clarifying that I was drawing the information from the Explanatory Notes.
I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment Nos.22 and 23 not moved.]
Baroness Buscombemoved Amendment No.24
Page 90, line 20, leave out paragraph 7.
1298
The noble Baroness said: I should like to move Amendment No.24 and also speak to Amendment No.25.
Amendment No.24 simply deals with an inconsistency, that paragraph 7 in Schedule 1 only applies to certain circumstances with regard to shared parenting. We believe that it should apply whatever the circumstances.
The wording in Amendment No.25 speaks for itself. We feel that amendments to the level of maintenance payable should, in all fairness, be backdated to the date of cessation of care and not, as currently stated in the Bill, when the Child Support Agency reaches its decision. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I have some difficulty because I had understood the import of the amendments rather differently. I had understood that Amendments Nos.24 and 25 were probing amendments about the Government's philosophy on shared care, probing the circumstances in which there would be an abatement of maintenance. Amendment No.24 seeks to remove the possibility of any reduction of maintenance liability for those parents liable to pay basic or reduced rates to share the care of a child.
I am perfectly willing to return to these amendments and pursue the matter in correspondence. My briefing is very much at odds with the noble Baroness' introduction, which, if I may say so., was extremely brief, which also did not help me.
Baroness Buscombe: I apologise to the Minister. Amendment No.24 is confined to a very narrow point. There is an inconsistency as to who comes under the heading of those with shared care, in that paragraph 7 only applies to certain circumstances with regard to shared parenting. We believe it should apply in all circumstances.
Baroness Heigham: As this point is quite technical, can the noble Baroness write to me? If I am not able to meet her points, we could re-address the issue at Report or Third Reading.
Baroness Buscombe: I accept the suggestion. Can the Minister also come back on Amendment No.25?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My understanding of Amendment No.25 is that it relates to cases where the non-resident parent has a nil rate of liability because he is receiving social security benefit and shares the care of the child. Is that the noble Baroness' understanding of the amendment? If not, it would be sensible to follow the same procedure of an exchange of letters. We could put copies in the Library.
Baroness Buscombe: I share the Minister's stance. Perhaps we should revert to correspondence on the matter, in which case I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment Nos. 25 and 26 not moved.]
Earl Russellmoved Amendment No.27.
Page 91, leave out lines 33 to 45.
The noble Earl said: Amendment No.27 deals with a matter of drafting. It has picked up what became known in our debates on the jobseeker's Bill as a Humpty-Dumpty clause. It is Section 10A of Schedule 1, page 91, line 33 onwards.
"The Secretary of State may by regulations provide that—

(a) paragraph 2 is to have effect as if different percentages were substituted for those set out there;

(b) paragraph 3(1) or (3), 4(1), 5 or 7(7) is to have effect as if different amounts were substituted for those set out there."

It really is a case of words meaning what I say they mean.
I have two questions to ask about this matter. First, what does the Minister intend it to mean? Second, what guarantees can she offer us against the reading of perverse meanings into this undue licence in the drafting by her successors? No government are in power for ever and governments do not know who will succeed them. Is it really wise to give such an extreme latitude of drafting to we know not who? It is on that second point that I shall listen to the Minister's reply with the greatest care. I do not think that this is a good way to draft legislation. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I shall give the noble Earl a fairly brief answer and then see if he is satisfied. If he is not, perhaps he can then encourage me to expand on my response. Amendment No. 27 seeks to remove the regulation making powers that allow the Secretary of State to adapt the percentages and amounts used to set the maintenance rates and to revise the number of nights and fractions used in determining the reduction in the amount of maintenance to be paid where care of a child is shared.
We obviously believe that we have got it right. I could explain why and tell the noble Earl what the evidence is from overseas, but I should like to get to his basic point. We are concerned that the rates and amounts that form the core of the new scheme should not be subjected to unnecessary modification. The intention to provide regulation-making powers is simply intended as a safeguard to ensure that the Secretary of State can respond quickly should the rates and amounts provided in the Bill prove not to be appropriate in reflecting changes in the lives of children and parents.
This is the usual situation where one tries to avoid putting precise numbers on the face of a Bill because one may, in the light of experience, need to change them. It is more straightforward to do this by regulations than by any other method. If it would help the noble Earl, I should be very happy to try to give assurances about how those regulation-making powers might operate so that they are properly accountable to Parliament. However, when talking about benefits, it is fairly conventional to allow fractions and percentages to be determined by regulations to allow them to be adapted if needs be.
1300
I do not particularly envisage such a situation, although I could conceive of one happening if, in the light of experience, it was found necessary to change the amounts. I do not know whether that has helped the noble Earl, but it is a fairly conventional way in social security legislation of allowing us to change percentages with proper parliamentary scrutiny—that is, by way of regulation—without the need to go for primary legislation. I am not sure whether the noble Earl requires a larger response, but that is why we are doing it in this way.
Earl Russell: I thank the Minister for her reply. As I expected, I have no great objection to her present intention under the schedule. I thought it was not intended to do anything particularly iniquitous and I understand why she wishes to do it in this way. However, before we leave the matter, I should like the noble Baroness to pay attention to the more general scope of my question; namely, what is the extreme limit of what could be done under these powers? I do not mean what could be done by the Minister, I mean by someone else.
If we put such powers into primary legislation, what use can be made of them? We are giving someone a ticket to travel under this legislation, and I should like to know where that ticket can take them. At the same time, I want to know whether the same effect—I do not oppose the Minister's desire to achieve it—could possibly be produced out of a slightly less open-ended wording. This is getting quite close to the proposition that the Secretary of State can do whatever he likes. It is not really our job to give quite such a carte blanche. Therefore, as the Minister has a perfectly reasonable specific intention, would it be possible to spell it out in a rather tighter way and not leave it quite as open ended as it is at present? I believe that this point is worth referring to parliamentary counsel for future consideration because, as the Minister said, other things are drafted in this way. I really do not think that they should be.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I should like, first, to point out that the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee was satisfied that regulations were appropriate in this field, so that has been a considered judgment. The noble Earl seems to be saying that all secondary legislation forms part of the works of the devil and that, therefore, we should avoid it. Like me, he knows that this Chamber, the Moses Room and every committee room would be sitting both night and day in order to get through legislation if every change had to be done by primary and not secondary legislation. Given the fact that something like 3,000 or so separate statutory instruments come here each year, including social security legislation, I do not believe that the noble Earl would like to be here to examine all of them as primary legislation. There is a basic point here about the utility of secondary legislation. As I said, this has been approved by the scrutiny committee.
Secondly, I do not see why the noble Earl should think that there will not be proper parliamentary scrutiny because these are affirmative regulations. As

1301
a result, they will have to come before the noble Earl if he is so minded to discuss them in the usual way. No one is trying to duck or conceal.
Thirdly, the noble Earl asked me what would be the most extreme position in which such powers could be used. I suppose if one said that 100 per cent of someone's income was to be used as maintenance, that would be the limit. I could hardly conceive of 110 per cent of someone's income being used in that way. Clearly one could change those percentages of 15, 20 or 25 per cent, and so on.
I am inventing my next example and I shall probably be advised that it is not a good example at all. The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, is continually telling me that there is really no difference between taxation and national insurance, for example, and that they form a continuum. In that case I could conceive that one might have a different version of gross income, even though here we are dealing with net income. If there were some changes in pensions treatment, for example, it might be right and equitable to re-evaluate what counts as net income for the purposes of the percentages we are discussing. I could conceive of that possibility. I have no reason to think that it is at all likely but, realistically, it is not impossible. In that situation one would wish to discuss that in the Chamber to ensure that the spirit of what we intend is preserved if taxation law, national insurance law or pensions law were to be changed. That seems to me at least a feasible possibility. Given that there will be full parliamentary scrutiny by virtue of affirmative resolutions, I do not think that the noble Earl need have anything to worry about.
9.15 p.m.
Earl Russell: I thank the Minister for that reply. She has got into rather a habit this evening of putting words into my mouth. I was not arguing in this amendment the case for primary versus secondary legislation. I had specifically conceded the appropriateness of secondary legislation in this instance and I think that the record will show that. What I was trying to suggest was that the vires which confer the power to make secondary legislation might be rather more tightly drafted. That is a point which I leave with the Committee. I shall not ask the Minister to reply to it again.
I have another point that I have mentioned to the Minister about 100 times; I hope that this is the last time I have to say it. It is no good offering me scrutiny because the power of scrutiny is useless without the power of control. However, I shall not say that again. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 28 not moved.]
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Applications under section 4 of the Child Support Act 1991]:
Baroness Buscombemoved Amendment No. 29:
Page 3, line 3, leave out subsection (2).
1302
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 29 I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 30, 31, 32, 33 and 35. I also wish to oppose the Question that Clause 2 stand part of the Bill.
This is an important part of the proceedings of the Bill. It was debated at great length in another place. The Minister will know that we have all been much lobbied on this subject from a number of different organisations. Therefore we feel that it is important to debate the matter fully this evening.
The current CSA legislation confirms that where parents are able to reach agreement on the level of maintenance for their children they may do so and they may also incorporate that agreement into a court order. If they do this, no CSA assessment can be made and the level of child maintenance to be paid will be covered by their agreement. In practice this is a valuable and greatly used provision. It enables parents to negotiate and agree their own arrangements without having to resort to the CSA. This benefits both the parents and children concerned and relieves the workload of an overstretched CSA.
Clause 2 of the Bill effectively removes this ability by stating that once it comes into force, even if parents are able to agree their arrangements and have them incorporated into an order, after just one year either parent may renege on that agreement and instead apply to the CSA. That will effectively bring an end to parental discussion and negotiation as any agreement that may be reached will be capable of being overturned at the end of a year by either parent who believes that he or she can do better through the CSA.
That approach is totally contrary to developments both in Europe and in this country on matters relating to children and finances generally. The overwhelming trend is towards encouraging parents to discuss and negotiate their own arrangements. This enables and encourages parents to act responsibly and realistically gives them the opportunity to tailor workable solutions to their particular financial circumstances. This ability is beneficial to all concerned and often helps reduce the resentment and acrimony caused by the imposition of outside "solutions". Indeed, the belief that there are benefits to parents in being able to agree their own arrangements underpins the Government's support and development of mediation in family matters.
There are numerous circumstances where parents want to opt out of the CSA. The three basic alternatives are as follows. First, parents reach agreement similar to what the CSA would have assessed but wish to avoid having to go through the CSA procedure. Secondly, parents agree that payments for the children will be greater than the CSA would assess. The most common reason for this circumstance is likely to be in return for a trade off. For example, the mother will agree to make no maintenance claims for herself—this is often referred to as a "clean break"—in return for a better level of maintenance for the children. This can have benefits all round. The non-resident father is happier to pay the money because it is deemed to be going to the children

1303
and gives a definite length to the maintenance obligation. The mother in turn no longer has to concern herself about forming new relationships and the effect that that has on the maintenance. Thirdly, parents may agree to a lesser sum than the CSA. Again, this will often result from financial trade offs.
For example, the non-resident parent may transfer capital or the house to enable the mother and child to remain housed, with the mother accepting in return a lesser level of maintenance for the children. The scope for this kind of settlement is likely to increase under the new CSA where the residential parent's income is no longer taken into account. One could have situations where the residential parent works and has sufficient income but there is a need for capital to secure accommodation for the children.
To benefit from this exemption the parents need to have their agreements approved by the courts. This provides an important protection against a parent being pressurised into unsuitable agreements, while at the same time it provides a straightforward and established procedure. It is a procedure that is frequently used when parents are divorcing and have been able to reach agreement on financial aspects generally as it enables them to ask the court to confirm the terms of an overall settlement that may well include spousal maintenance and capital at the same time as child maintenance.
One cannot see any benefits to this clause, which effectively states that after one year either parent may call upon the state to intervene and override agreements that they have reached, even if that agreement has been reached after full advice and after a court has approved the terms. On the other hand, one can see many benefits in allowing the current situation to continue which enables separating parents to agree their own financial situation.
We are here to improve the CSA. We are asking: why burden it with more work than it can cope with? We should also remember that, in contrast to the CSA—which we all agree is currently failing too many children—the courts in general enjoy a wealth of experience and expertise and are normally very effective in dealing with more complex cases.
I believe that it is important to review what the Select Committee had to say on the matter. It stated:
"We are concerned that the CSA formula may be invoked to overturn settlements agreed to in court. It would be preferable if settlements reached in court paid attention to the CSA formula from the outset.
"We recommend that further research be carried out into the extent to which the interests of the children concerned would be adversely affected by allowing parties to 'private' agreements to have recourse to the rough justice of the … new formula".
The Minister informed the Select Committee that the justice system is not always uniform. We fear that this shows a clear bias towards conformity and administrative convenience.
Our amendments and proposed new clauses deal with three principal concerns. First, that the CSA will be swamped with cases as a result of the clause and it will not be able to cope. Secondly, private
1304
arrangements will not be reached as easily as they were in the past. The court system will not be able to cope with the greater volume of litigation. The third and most important point is that the amendments and new clauses would allow the courts to provide a disbursement of assets in the best interests of the child. Without the new clauses, we fear that the deal offered to the children will be lessened.
On a final note, perhaps I may add in relation to the debate earlier on the upper limits in Clause 1, that the numbers affected by this will radically increase if Clause 2 becomes law. I beg to move.
Baroness Honk of Heigham: Clause 2 and this group of amendments all relate to the relative jurisdictions of the Child Support Agency and the courts in matters of child maintenance. The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, has spelt out very clearly and lucidly where the concerns of the Opposition Bench lie.
As noble Lords will recall, a central feature of the child support scheme introduced by the party opposite was a deliberate move away from having questions of child maintenance settled by lawyers and the courts. Provisions in the Child Support Act 1991, which we supported, provided a straightforward administrative mechanism for setting levels of child maintenance and, where required, for collecting maintenance payments on behalf of the children concerned.
The legislation introduced by the Conservative government clearly envisaged a time when all child support matters were settled by the agency. It was intended that during a transitional period only—a period expected to last for some three years—the courts would be able to vary existing court orders for child maintenance and to make new orders based on agreements between the parents concerned. During this period, parents who had such maintenance arrangements would be prevented from coming to the agency for a maintenance assessment unless benefit was claimed for the children. In other words, it was expected to be a transitional period only. Thereafter the CSA writ would run and there would be only one assessment of child maintenance—that made by the agency and given in any court settlement. That was the previous government's proposal. It went far beyond anything that we are proposing.
Unfortunately, the Conservatives found that their child support scheme was not working as well as they had hoped. So, in 1995, they deferred the take on of court cases indefinitely. Nevertheless, they were careful to take a delegated power that would enable the agency to take over such cases in the future.
We have given a high priority to reforming the child support scheme to make it work effectively for children and their parents. Our initial view, as set out in the Green Paper, echoed that of the Conservative Government's position—that there was no role for the courts in a reformed child support scheme, for all the reasons which persuaded us that the Conservative's policy in this area was correct at the time of the Act. We expected to tread the path of the previous administration. However, in the course of

1305
consultation, we listened to the views of lawyers, judges, barristers, family solicitors and others, who often had very different views on this matter—there is not a single lawyers' view—and they saw a continuing need for court jurisdiction in this area, for the reasons spelt out so clearly by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe.
Some sought, as does the noble Baroness in moving the amendment, to give more power to the courts. We were encouraged to consider taking powers to require the courts to operate the child support rates, although retaining a power to depart from those rates if the court saw fit. We listened to the advice of a broad range of people within the law, including judges, lawyers, solicitors, barristers, court welfare officers, magistrates' clerks and the like. They had very different views but some would have called on us to, so to speak, impose the CSA settlement on the courts.
We concluded that neither that extreme nor the total removal of court jurisdiction was entirely satisfactory. One extreme was to let the courts have an entirely separate jurisdiction, which is what the noble Baroness seemed to be proposing, and the other was to allow the courts no jurisdiction whatever by imposing the CSA settlement. We thought that neither of those paths was appropriate. Removing all power from the courts to set child maintenance would deny the parents the right to agree to depart from the child support rates where benefit is not involved and have that agreement registered in court, perhaps along with other financial arrangements. The other extreme, requiring the courts to apply a simple system of rates, appeared to conflict with judicial independence, which is at the heart of the court process, and it was not clear in practice that the courts would be able to resist varying the rates in a wide range of circumstances.
We did not wish to follow either extreme position—to impose CSA rates on the courts., though possibly with some flexibility, or to place child maintenance entirely at the discretion of the courts where there were private cases, partly because we feared reproducing the inequities and lottery which the CSA in 1991 was designed to overcome. We are proposing a third way. We believe that it is more flexible and that it shares the values, which the noble Baroness offered, of mediation and negotiation while preventing abuse of that system. Very simply, no private cases need ever come to the CSA. That includes WFTC cases. Therefore, around 55 per cent of all cases would potentially be private cases and need never come to the CSA. Only those cases where the parent with care is on a prescribed benefit—normally, income support—would come to the C:SA. Very many of those cases will not go to the courts because people are not getting divorced or, if they are getting divorced, no substantial property is involved and therefore there is not a question of the courts adjusting child support against spousal maintenance and the like. However, if the private case, which is a court case, comes to the CSA, it will do so only because those involved are seriously dissatisfied with court arrangements.
1306
When will that happen? It will happen if either side feel themselves pressured at the point of making that settlement into too high or too low a settlement compared with the benchmark of the Child Support Agency's figures, which are now widely known by all lawyers. They could come to the CSA only after 12 months—we are not suggesting that this would be knee-jerk—and even then, to encourage negotiation and mediation, which is what we want, they have to give the other side two months' notice to allow opportunity for further negotiation and mediation.
Either side will come to the CSA possibly because he or she is dissatisfied and feels pressured at the time or alternatively if payments that are supposed to be made are not being made reliably and possibly the parent with care does not want to keep revisiting the courts to obtain the money but prefers to put the matter into the hands of the Child Support Agency.
What is the consequence of saying that either party may come to the CSA if he or she is aggrieved about the settlement figure or about its effective collection? I suggest that the consequence will be that, because the lawyers on both sides know that an aggrieved client could come to the CSA, if he or she departs very far from the CSA benchmark, and have ('SA rates imposed, those same lawyers will strongly encourage their clients to settle at the CSA rate. In other words, they will fix court maintenance in the shadow of the CSA. We shall not impose it on them, but we expect lawyers to give advice to clients that this is in their best interest.
However, the important point is that this arrangement still leaves all parties free when they wish to go above or below that child support figure. For example, a father might wish to go above the CSA figure because there is a disabled child and he feels it right that he should provide more; or he may feel, and she may agree, that it is reasonable for him to go below the CSA figure because he is picking up boarding school fees, including tuition fees, as well as maintenance.
If all agree, that is fine. By having that element of flexibility but nonetheless expecting lawyers to ad vise their clients to stay at the CSA benchmark figure unless there are good grounds, by consent, to go above or below it, it still allows other elements in the settlement referred to by the noble Baroness—for example, spousal maintenance, pensions, property, investments and so on—to be tailored to the particular financial circumstances of that family. There are many elements in the settlement of the kinds of couples referred to by the noble Baroness which can take the strain of discretionary judgment while the CSA figure remains the benchmark figure for child maintenance and child support.
The reason why it is important that there should be a common rate between the CSA and the courts—in other words, the same figure—is that so many parents with care come back on to benefits. To put the problem into perspective, we have a caseload of about 1.2 million, about half of whom will be private clients. Each quarter, around 100,000 lone parents move on to

1307
or off income support. That represents 10 per cent of the entire lone parent caseload. Even prosperous families can find that they need income support to see them through a financial crisis. So it is simply impossible to tell whether at some point in the future the subject has gone through a court process—for example, a business may have failed, she may have become self-employed and that employment has collapsed and she has had to go back on to benefit.
That is why we have decided, following extensive advice and consultation, not to go for either of the two extremes: to impose a CSA settlement on the courts willy-nilly or alternatively to let the courts do willy-nilly what they think fit. Instead, we have decided that the courts may make and vary child maintenance orders, but because there is the fallback of coming to the CSA if there is an aggrieved client, they will do so in the shadow of the CSA rates. If the agreement breaks down, the ability of either parent to come to the CSA will be an important guarantee that children will receive proper levels of maintenance.
This provision is not retrospective, which was one of the problems of the 1991 Act. It will apply only to new cases. Clause 2 gives effect to our policy in this area and makes changes to the child support scheme so that more separated parents can apply for child support. It will allow parents who have a court order for maintenance which has been placed for a year to apply to the CSA for child support calculation instead. But as I said, it also protects private clients with existing court orders.
Parents with maintenance orders in force at the time that the reforms are introduced and those with written maintenance agreements made before April 1993 will, as now, use the courts for enforcement and variation of child maintenance liability. Current arrangements whereby a parent with care on benefit can have an existing court order overturned by a child support assessment will remain unchanged. This will ensure that a two-tier system between the courts and the CSA does not develop. We expect that this will encourage courts to make consent orders in the shadow of the simple and predictable child support rates, because either parent has the option of turning to the CSA after one year and giving two months' notice for further negotiation or mediation, if that is appropriate. We have a one-year waiting period and a two-month cooling-off period.
I hope that, with that explanation on clause stand part, the noble Baroness understands what we seek to do. We seek to avoid two extremes so that where there is consent private arrangements will, as now, continue with good grace and negotiation or mediation. This is, as it were, a default rate. Either party and his or her lawyers will be aware that the other can come back if there is dissatisfaction. As a result, there is a fixed element in what may otherwise be a somewhat more complicated package. We believe that this is the most decent means to ensure that there is reliable maintenance at a consistent level without introducing
1308
a two-tier system, while encouraging mediation, negotiation and individually determined private arrangements.
I turn to Amendments Nos. 29 to 35 which seek to amend Clause 2. I am a little surprised that the Conservative Members of the Committee have tabled these amendments. While I am sure that they are probing amendments, I believe that they will increase uncertainty. It is true that Amendment No. 35 seeks to address one problem that has bedevilled court maintenance in the past: the risk that children will suffer because parents with care are forced to accept lower maintenance under duress. There is an amendment to that effect. I worry about this. I do not see how the CSA can decide whether a parent with care is under duress except on the word of the parent in question. I do not see how the CSA can decide that a court proceeding has taken place under duress. The CSA can properly decide the appropriate maintenance rate given the number of children and the income, but it should not be concerned with concepts of duress and improper influence during a court procedure to which it has not been a party. I share the concern of the noble Baroness, which I believe to be an honourable one, but I believe that this is a dangerous road to follow. I do not see how we can do it.
Amendments Nos. 36 to 39 would, if accepted, give back to the courts the power to set levels of child maintenance in any case where they made other financial arrangements. I hope I have made the point that those other arrangements, such as property or spousal maintenance, can take the strain. These amendments are inconsistent with what we seek to do.
I hope that, on reflection, the noble Baroness agrees that we have tried to bring together the need to recognise the discretion involved in private arrangements and not undermine the role of lawyers in trying to look after the best interests of the parties and the children, without at the same time deserting what may be the best interests of children by putting in the floor of the child support rate which both parties know is the fall-back if either is dissatisfied. Essentially, we are setting up a Mexican stand-off (if I may call it that) based on the rate of child support, in the knowledge that the other elements in the formula—spousal maintenance, property, pensions and the like—can take the strain of discretionary ones. We believe that, broadly speaking, under this arrangement there is a common standard of maintenance right across all child support cases, the CSA and courts alike, but where both parties in private cases have good reason to go above or below it, and agree that it is in their best interests and those of the child to do so, the CSA will not stand in their way.
I hope that with that slightly long explanation of what we seek to do—I thought it important to put it on record—the noble Baroness is able to withdraw her amendment and endorse what we seek to do. We believe that in this very difficult situation, in which principles pull in different directions, we have found a

1309
way through. While the solution is perhaps slightly subtle, we hope that it will deliver what we all want: regular maintenance based, where possible, on private arrangements reached by consent and mediation. I hope that, in the light of that, the noble Baroness feels able to accept that what we seek to do is decent and withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: The Minister has given a long and clear explanation of the Government's thinking on this matter. The noble Baroness has said that the long-term objective is that gradually what the courts do approximates to what the CSA is doing. My noble friend was concerned about the load on the CSA in the shorter term. Have the Government any estimate of the number of cases that might come to the CSA to overturn arrangements made in the courts in the first few years? On a practical basis, can the Minister give any figure?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am grateful to the noble Baroness. In my reply I overlooked that perfectly proper point.
In 1998 the courts made around 8,000 court orders in respect of children. The CSA handled around 350,000 new maintenance applications. The caseload builds up. Of that 8,000 I would expect only a tiny fraction to wish to come to the CSA except—and only except—in those cases where the parent with care has subsequently gone on to benefit in which case they must do so. The CSA handled 350,000 cases compared with 8,000 handled by the courts. The noble Baroness's guess is as good as mine. Perhaps a few hundred, perhaps 10 per cent, of those may have to come back to the CSA because the parent with care will go on to benefit. Of the remainder, the noble Baroness's guess is as good as mine on the default rate coming back to the CSA.
Because of the way the system will be set up, I hope that we have overcome the problem. Lawyers would know that they cannot depart from the CSA rate without the full and informed consent of both parties and would build into their arrangements at the court the CSA rate. If we are successful, then very few cases should come before us.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for the full and clear explanation of Clause 2. We shall consider it fully and carefully between now and Report stage. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 30 to 35 not moved.]
Clause 2 agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 36 to 39 not moved.]
Clause 3 [Applications by persons claiming or receiving benefit]:
Lord Higginsmoved Amendment No. 40:
Page 3, line 13, leave out ("or any other benefit of a prescribed kind").
1310
The noble Lord said: This amendment is similar to one moved by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. We think that the wording at line 13 of Clause 3 is somewhat comprehensive. It states:
"This section applies where income support, an income-based jobseeker's allowance"—
I include the words the amendments would omit—
"or any other benefit of a prescribed kind is claimed by or in respect of, or paid to or in respect of, the parent of a qualifying child".
The phrase,
"or any other benefit of a prescribed kind,
seems extremely broad. It would be helpful to know what the Government have in mind. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: Perhaps I may ask two precise and short questions. First, could child benefit be a prescribed benefit under this clause? Secondly, could the old age pension be a prescribed benefit under this clause?
9.45 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Amendment No. 40 amends Clause 3 of the Bill so that on: y people claiming income support or income-based jobseeker's allowance can be treated as having applied for child support.
At present, Clause 3 provides that people in receipt of income support and income-based jobseeker's allowance, or any prescribed benefit, will be treated as applying for child support. The amendment removes the regulation-making power and would mean that should the need arise it would be more difficult to add other benefits in the future.
Under the current scheme, a parent with care who claims income support or income-based JSA can be required to authorise the Secretary of State to take action to recover child maintenance. She is not required to do so if there are reasonable grounds to believe that there will be a risk of her, or any child living with her, suffering harm or undue distress. This is known as "good cause". However,, child support arrangements can be made only after a formal application for maintenance has been received and no parent with care can be made to apply. Even if good cause is not accepted, the parent with care can choose simply not to respond.
Under the new scheme, parents with care who make a claim for IS or income-based JSA will be treated as having applied for child support unless they specifically request that child support should not be pursued.
The noble Earl asked whether the fact that someone was receiving benefit could amount to a sufficient definition. No, because someone could have child benefit and be a private case and therefore not fall within the framework of the Bill. As regards someone in receipt of a retirement pension, I suppose one could conceive of a pensioner having children of the

1311
appropriate age. I am not saying that it is not possible, but it seems fairly unlikely. It would be hard to imagine because the child would have had to be conceived after the age of 50. It seems unlikely, but I suppose that it could be possible.
As with the current scheme, there is a power to prescribe benefits other than income support and income-based jobseeker's allowance. In the past, DWA was prescribed, but as it has now been replaced by the disabled person's tax credit it no longer applies.
This amendment would mean that we would no longer have the power to prescribe benefits other than income support or income-based jobseeker's allowance. As explained in the memorandum on delegated powers, while we do not intend at the current time to include other benefits, it is desirable that we retain the power to be able to add others, as is currently the case, or, given changes that could be envisaged, to alter existing benefit proposals.
That would give us the flexibility to replace or add to the benefits set out on the face of the Bill should a new benefit be introduced to which parents with care may be eligible in future. It is only right that if these circumstances arise, all parents with care should be treated in the same way. It will also enable other existing benefits to be added should it be necessary.
Delegated powers are a feature of social security legislation. For example, Section 70 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 provides for entitlement to ICA to be linked to care of a person receiving attendance allowance, DLA or such other payment out of public funds as may be prescribed.
It is normal for any new benefits to be introduced by primary legislation. That would mean that if we wanted to add new benefits to Clause 3 we could do so by this route at the same time. In theory, child benefit could be prescribed but we have no plans to do so. Old age pension is not regarded as a benefit and could not come within the framework of the Bill even if by changes in fertility treatment and the like someone is a pensioner and also the parent of a dependent child.
Delegated powers serve a number of functions. We set these out to the committee which scrutinises these matters and it accepted the need for such powers. The delegated powers in Clause 3 will allow the child support scheme to be adapted to address the benefits system as it evolves to reflect the lives of parents and children. I am happy to assure the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, that it would be an affirmative resolution. I hope that in the light of that explanation he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Earl Russell: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. She was perhaps a little dismissive of the implication of the old age pension. Perhaps I may remind her that, first, a man can be a parent with care and, secondly, that my father was 65 when I was born.
I was interested in what she said about it being possible for child benefit to become a benefit of a prescribed kind and I accept that she has no plans to
1312
do so. But should some future government want to extend the system to non-benefit cases, this would be an easy way of doing so.
Would it meet the Government's intention if instead of saying,
"any other benefit of a prescribed kind",
they said,
"any other means-tested benefit of a prescribed kind"?
Would that addition cost the Government anything and, if not, why not do it?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Perhaps I may reflect on that. The reason that I hesitated about means testing is because of payments such as WFTC; that is, payments that were benefits when they were family credit and are still income-related but not part of the benefit system as we envisage it—in other words, private cases. That is why I should like to reflect on what the noble Earl said.
With regard to the point about pensions: yes, mea culpa. Of course I should have realised that, unlike women, men's fertility may continue for very much longer and, indeed, men may continue to be parents with care. Therefore, I stand corrected on that point. The noble Earl is absolutely right. One wishes that his father had had even more children after the age of 65 to add to the inherited talent and meritocracy of this country.
Lord Higgins: Even at this late hour, it is perhaps tempting to enter into a discussion of the many talents of the noble Earl's father. However, perhaps it is as well not to do so at this stage.
The description which I believe the noble Baroness was seeking in relation to the probability of this event was, "it did not happen very frequently". I believe that that is what she should have said. However, I shall leave that on one side. I suspect that it is also rather late to have an overall discussion on the question of delegated legislation. However, the figure that she quoted earlier with regard to the number of statutory instruments, and so on, which are now coming forward is pretty frightening.
It has always seemed to me—it is a personal view—that if such a power is taken it is advisable that as much as possible should be put on the face of the Bill, even though subsequently it can be amended by order. The real problem with regard to delegated legislation is that it is not subsequently amendable. It is there on a take it or leave it basis. Therefore, if a particular item is to be considered in that context, I believe that it is always advisable that it should be on the face of the Bill, that we should have an initial crack at it and, in some cases, it should also be adjusted in a way which is open to amendment.
The noble Baroness has been very clear on that particular point. Subject only to denying the words that she put into my mouth about half-an-hour ago in relation to taxation and social security contributions, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Byfordmoved Amendment No. 41:
Page 3. line 16, at end insert—
("( ) All such claims shall be accompanied by identification documentation as follows—

(a) a Department of Social Security smart card,

(b) a current driving licence,

(c) a current United Kingdom passport, or

(d) a Department of Social Security payment book.").

The noble Baroness said: This amendment concerns the payment of benefits. I have specifically made four suggestions. As the noble Baroness knows very well, I have raised the matter in this House on many occasions. As, indeed, are many others, I am somewhat concerned about the way in which we are to change our benefit payments. It will not be by compulsion. As the noble Baroness said to me earlier today, people will still be able to choose to receive their payments through the Post Office system if they so wish.
It may be that I am raising this matter in the wrong section. My noble friend Lord Higgins and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, will raise a similar issue with regard to benefit payments later in our discussions. However, I felt that we should have an opportunity to raise the matter at this point, and that is why I tabled the amendment.
I accept that the installation of ACT will bring, as the Government say, many benefits. However, at the moment some 2 million people are without bank accounts. For many, that decision has been made twice: first, probably because they are unbankable; and, secondly, because they choose to remain unbanked. It seems extraordinary to those of us who have bank accounts (it would seem strange to us not to have them) to imagine why people so choose; but choose they certainly do.
I tabled the amendment to try to find out from the Minister exactly how the Government expect people will identify themselves. At the moment they do so either through GIRO or through the payment book. If social security payment books are to cease, which I understand they are, one must still have some form of identification. There have been rumours that that may take the form of a smart card. If so, that is fine but at least we should like to know.
I have raised this issue on the post office Bill and in debates that we have had on other issues. We have been told that we are waiting for the PIU report which was due to be published after Easter. Easter has now gone. It then slipped from Easter to May and then from May to the summer. I am worried that it will slip from us completely and we shall not have the report before the Bill passes through both Houses. That would be a great mistake. I have some figures for March from the CAB which states that nine out of 10 income support claimants do not choose to be paid by ACT. I know that there are new claimants who the Minister will tell me prefer to be paid, in that way.
There are two problems. The first is the question of individuals having reasonable access to the payments at a time that suits them. Secondly, some people do not wish to have bank accounts for various reasons.
1314
Some of the payments are absolutely essential. Where families have broken up, there is often a joint account. Couples do not always have individual bank accounts. In those circumstances, the caring parent, usually the woman, may find that the account has become overdrawn and therefore will not have access to those essential benefits in the way that she has now. Of course, at present she can go to the post office, as most claimants choose to do. Therefore, it is extremely important that we consider the matter today, although I know we shall debate it again later a t greater length.
The other side of the coin is that at the moment the payments are made through the sub-post office system. I am sure that all Members of the Committee will be aware of the extreme pressure that there has been on sub-post offices and of the major rally which took place three weeks ago. The Committee will be aware of the 3,128,000 plus people who signed the petition to express their concern about the future of post offices. That is because 40 per cent of the income that goes to post offices is derived from the handling of welfare payments by sub-postmasters and mistresses.
The closure of banks, whether they be rural or urban, has exacerbated the problem. I noticed in the Telegraph today an article about the fact that the loss of banks adds millions of miles to village travel. So there are the additional factors of travel, pollution and cost.
If one is looking at the social side, one will know that the local post office does more than merely provide payments for claimants. It is the heart of the community, whether it is a rural or urban sub-post office. Along with, I suspect, many other people, I have been extremely concerned over the past three weeks about what is to happen. The Government changed their minds about the original plans which my party had put in place and have scrapped some of those. But there is a big question mark over the whole issue. Perhaps the Minister will provide further clarification on this issue rather than merely saying that we must wait for the PIU report.
I understand that if a social bank is established, it may have 2 million clients. Who will cover the costs of that? Recently we were told that the cost of transfer will be only 1p. But I am sure that it will cost more than 1 p to provide banking facilities for 1 million people who have no assets. Are the Government expecting the existing banks to cover the cost of that or are they going to put money towards it to make sure that it is possible for it to happen? At present, there are too many questions left unanswered. If we do not put down one or two markers as the Bill goes through the House, in my humble opinion we shall be in the unenviable position of passing legislation without having real regard to the nub of the whole issue, which is payment to those whom the Government are trying to help.
When moving his amendment earlier today, the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, spoke clearly of the importance of people. We are talking about people and about payments and keeping them simple and accessible. At the moment all we have is theory and

1315
"possibles" which, with my amendment, I have tried to flush out. As I believe the noble Baroness accepts, this is a probing amendment. Perhaps she will clarify the position for us. I beg to move.
10 p.m.
Earl Russell: The noble Baroness and I have cooperated before on the issue of post offices. I look forward to doing so again. The matter is raised in Amendments Nos. 180 and 181, on which I shall have a good deal more to say, including mentioning some of the reasons why people on benefit are not satisfied with the services they receive from banks. I believe that we shall speak with one voice, as we have done before.
Amendment No. 41 concerns verification of those who wish to claim benefit. The Minister and I have had exchanges on this subject since 1998 and she can probably foresee what I am about to say. Here we have a clash of right and right. The desire to know that the people to whom benefits are paid are the right people is a good, proper and necessary one. At the same time, the need of those who have suffered a sudden emergency to be able to eat that evening is a real and pressing need. When the needs of verification conflict with the needs of real hunger, we need to think again.
Recently. I was in conversation with a CAB bureau manager who, I am sure, would prefer to remain unattributable. Without any questioning, he introduced the subject of verification as one that causes problems within the area of his bureau simply because the process of verification takes a considerable time. People cannot instantly lay their hands on the necessary documents; many people leave home; some may not have access to documents; sometimes the documents are destroyed in a burglary or a fire. While they wait for verification to be completed they have no benefit and no income; they run up debts; fall into arrears with their rent; face the risk of eviction; and probably end up going to loan sharks.
In that situation the problem of verification is not a simple one. Maybe we need a procedure for paying benefits to people on an interim basis pending verification. One would have to put a time limit on that. That need particularly applies to women who are victims of domestic violence who, of course, often have to leave home in a great hurry and do not have time to pick up bank cards, birth certificates and so on. It also applies to children who have been thrown out by their parents—noble Lords may remember the Children's Society report of last January—which is more common than one would believe. Usually, their documents are in the hands of their parents. They cannot appeal for them without revealing their whereabouts, which is something they do not always want to do.
If the Minister will consider the possibility of an interim payment of benefit on a short-term basis, pending the completion of verification, she may possibly be in a position to save a good deal of hardship. I do not know whether she believes that that manages to reconcile right with right. It is something
1316
that needs doing. On the spur of the moment I cannot think of a better way of doing it. On the issue of post offices, we shall return to fight again another day and we shall fight hard.
Lord Higgins: I rise to support my noble friend Lady Byford who has put forward what can best be described as a trailer for a future major event as regards discussions on the Post Office. My noble friend has put forward most forcefully the arguments in favour of having a form of identification. That being so, I think it is appropriate to consider the proposals that she has made in her amendment. In that context, I look forward to hearing what the Minister will say in reply.
Perhaps I may say briefly that the Minister and I have had a number of exchanges on this issue. It seems rather difficult to put over the point that concerns us; namely, that it is the method of payments through the post office which is so widely regarded by people throughout the country. We shall need to return to that matter in the light not only of the Minister's reply this evening, but also in the subsequent debate to which the noble Earl has rightly drawn attention.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: We have heard two maxi-speeches and one mini-speech, none of which has been addressed directly to the amendment before the Committee. The amendment concerns verification, but the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, has instead used it as a peg to put forward a trailer for a wider debate on the role of post offices. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, has used it as a peg to raise issues concerned with the need for speedy access to funds where there is no obvious identification. Both of those are interesting issues, but not the ones identified on the Marshalled List.
Earl Russell: I believe that my remarks did address themselves to the matter of verification.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I agree that the whole debate concerns verification. Amendment No. 41 seeks to require those who claim certain benefits to produce specific evidence of their identity. We support the intention behind the amendment; namely, that barriers are put in the way of those who attempt to make claims under false names.
However, I would draw the attention of noble Lords to Section 1 of the Social Security Administration Act which already requires claimants to produce information or evidence to establish their identity. However, unlike this amendment, Section 1 does not specify which evidence the person must produce. They may produce evidence from a wide range of documents: birth certificates, passports, foreign identity cards or driving licences. Such documents are examined critically to ensure that they are genuine. For example, if it is thought to be necessary, birth certificates are checked against missing certificates and ultraviolet scanners are used to ensure that they are not fraudulent.

1317
The noble Baroness's amendment proposes that a list of acceptable documentation is placed in legislation. However, I suggest that there are difficulties with all of her suggestions. This may be better left to the looser arrangements—if I may put it that way—that the DSS currently has in place.
The noble Baroness first asks for the production of a smart card. There is no such card. The noble Baroness may be referring to the payment card which has now been withdrawn from use, so that would not work. Secondly, as regards a driving licence, it must be remembered that many people in this country—in particular women, those whose eyesight is impaired or those whose age prevents them from driving—do not hold a driving licence.
Thirdly, as regards the requirement to produce a UK passport, a number of people have chosen to live in this country but hold a passport issued by another country, or they may not be eligible to hold a UK passport. Finally, if a person is making a claim to benefit, they would not have in their possession a payment book. While many of the people concerned may have a child benefit book they could produce, again we cannot assume that all parents will have one in their possession.
For those reasons, we are reluctant to include a specific list. Instead, we interview claimants to establish their history and background. This information is checked against a range of other sources, including DSS records and those held by third parties. I hope that noble Lords will agree that the current powers provided by the Social Security Administration Act are sufficient to meet the purpose in this area. However, I should point out that Clause 3 does not deal with claims to benefit; it deals with applications for maintenance calculations.
Perhaps I may return to the wider issue that was raised. The noble Baroness was specific that she was using this as a peg to hold an early debate on post office payments. Her noble friend Lord Higgins has happily joined in the discussion, thus repeating an exchange we had during an Unstarred Question a little while ago. I am willing to follow this up through correspondence or in any other way acceptable to the noble Baroness. However, perhaps I may make one or two basic points.
The noble Baroness is right to say that the PIU report has slipped. We expect it to appear in late summer, rather than late May or early June as we originally thought. It will be between 2003 and 2005 before the ACT proposals are firmly and finally in place. Many of the details she asked about will be explored and discussed with Post Office Counters Ltd and sub-postmasters over the next few years.
There are many myths circulating. Every year, partly as a consequence of choice, or death, 500,000 people stop using post offices. Post office closures in urban and rural areas have been accelerating in recent years, well in advance of any proposals to change methods of payment. Given what is happening in finance and IT, if Post Office Counters does not enter the 21st century, it will find itself with a shrinking customer base. The question is how post offices will
1318
turn a potential threat into an opportunity, as major clearing banks close their outlets in rural areas, cutting the number of branches from 2,000 to 1,500 or fewer. The Post Office is in a position to exploit that opportunity.
The Post Office already acts as a proxy bank for LloydsTSB, Alliance & Leicester, Co-operative and Barclays and continues to negotiate with others. POCL is also developing—we hope to see this exploited in the PIU report—a universal hank, to make good the shortfall of individuals who are not currently in the system. Some 20 per cent of the population do not have access to banking services but rely on pawnbrokers, cheque changers, mail order catalogues offering goods at high interest rates and so on. Such people are excluded from the benefits of paying bills by direct debit and enjoying reductions. They have to go to friends to write cheques on their behalf. It is difficult for them to manage their lives that way. It will be to their advantage to enter the banking system. We have to ensure that the Post Office is in a position to help them. They should be able to draw their benefits and the sums of money that they want without additional cost, while ensuring security against fraud.
The more we explore the possibilities, the more I hope the noble Baroness will be persuaded that the threat, as perceived by sub-postmasters, is not just an opportunity but a lifeline. Without it, many sub-postmasters will be on the skids. Their lifeline will be offering financial services to the substantial number of people who are currently excluded from banking and who should enjoy the mainstream of imam: al services that the rest of us take for granted. I hope the noble Baroness accepts my assurance that we will be able to do something important, not just for rural communities and sub-postmasters but for those who are at the edges of financial society.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, talked about delays caused to a battered wife, for example, in protecting against fraud. The obvious point of call is a Social Fund crisis loan which has been devised to provide bridging and emergency money until an individual's financial situation can be regularised.
Given, as I say, that the main input was to discuss post offices—the noble Earl perfectly properly asked questions about people who had no documentation—I hope that in the light of my explanation on that and on the detailed points raised by the noble Baroness, she will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
10.15 p.m.
Baroness Byford: I thank the noble Baroness for her full response. As I said in my opening remarks, this was a probing amendment, particularly in relation to identification.
I do not fully accept the Minister's explanation. I was not talking about a lifeline to post offices; I was discussing the importance of easy access for people who need to obtain their benefit payments. If there are no banks in the community, they need somewhere to collect them and at the moment the most common feature is the post office.

1319
Perhaps I might add that in the discussions I had with sub-postmasters I did not find them negative. They are looking to understand what the Government's intentions are so that they can plan and invest in the future. At the moment that is still not clearly defined. We have been told that the payments can be paid by X or Y; but until the scheme is set up there is bound to be uncertainty. Small individual businesses therefore hesitate to invest because they do not know for certain what is coming.
I should hate the noble Baroness to think that I am on the whingeing end on behalf of sub-postmasters. They would be equally dismayed if I reflected that, and I am certainly not speaking as a representative of sub-postmasters, though I go into many rural and urban post offices. If all were as well as the Minister suggests, why do so many people still prefer to collect their benefit locally in cash in the way that they have been able to do hitherto?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: In future, people will still be able to go to a post office to collect their benefit in cash. They will not have to dig into their pockets and pull out a paper order book. Instead, the Post Office will hold their account and instead of, as now, their having to withdraw the whole of the order for £67 in cash and walking home with the entire week's money in their pocket, they will be able to withdraw £20 or £40. So they will go to the local post office and withdraw their cash. But they will not hand over an order book which will be stamped and then take the cash and the order book back home. That is the essential difference.
I repeat that this should be seen as a real opportunity, both for the postmasters because of the other services they can offer with it and for people in our rural communities.
Baroness Byford: I thank the noble Baroness for her intervention. As she said, it is not a question of people carrying an order book. That is where I come back to my amendment. How will the postmaster know that I am Mrs Jones and not Mrs Smith if I do not have a book? What identification will I show? Will I have an identity card? That is why I tabled the amendment: to enable the Minister to say in what way people will be able to identify that they are Mrs Jones and not Mrs Snooks. If they do not have a book and do not have a smart card, which has been ruled out, how will the postmaster—he may not be the local one, who may be away on holiday—know which person is which? I happily give way to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The process of identification is something which must be discussed and explored. But the problem is no different in principle than the one the banks face now.
Baroness Byford: But when one opens a bank account one completes around four pages of forms; it
1320
takes for ever and a day. Surely the noble Baroness is not suggesting that benefit recipients will have to go through the process of opening a bank account.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: This measure will come into effect in 2003. The noble Baroness is pressing me, if I may say so, about extreme levels of detail; for example, the documentation that someone will need to produce in order to set up a Post Office account from which they can draw their money, which is portable between X and Y. That is precisely why we need a two to three year lead time of discussion to see what is acceptable, workable, inexpensive and fraud-proof.
I do not wish to be discourteous to the noble Baroness, but she is asking us to speed forward to 2003 and describe what we will have in place, whereas over the next few years, once we have the PIU report, we will be negotiating with POCL as to what is appropriate and acceptable.
Baroness Byford: I, equally, do not wish to be discourteous; it is the last thing that I would wish to be.
The PIU report was asked for in October 1999; six months have gone by and we are no further down the road. I accept that it will not come into being until 2003, and therefore the Minister feels that I am pressing for too much too soon. However, I hope she understands why people need this information. My worry is that the Bill will pass through the House and we will still be no further.
At this late hour, I do not wish to offend. I do not think the Minister has given an answer, but she feels she cannot answer the question as it is. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Russellmoved Amendment No.42.
Page 4, line 21. at end insert—
("( ) Where the parent has complied with obligations imposed by this section, the Secretary of State shall be legally responsible for the confidentiality of information relating to her."").
The noble Lord said: I should also like to speak to Amendment No.100, which deals with the same point.
The amendments impose a duty of confidentiality on the Secretary of State where the parent concerned has complied with all the requirements of the Act. It makes the Secretary of State legally liable for any breach of confidentiality.
These amendments are principally, but by no means solely, concerned with the situation of women who fear violence from violent ex-partners, of whom there are a good many who come the way of the agency.
The amendment was moved by my right honourable friend Mr George, in the other place. The Minister gave him the most full-hearted assurances.
I am certain that those assurances were given in good faith, but I have received those assurances from every Minister who has dealt with this Act, right back to my noble kinsman Lord Henley in 1991. I am certain that all those assurances were given in good faith. Every Minister who has dealt with this matter

1321
has been determined to preserve confidentiality and the safety of women who are at risk of domestic violence. However, in spite of the evident goodwill of ministers of all kinds, the flow of cases of women whose ex-partners have discovered where they were through the CSA machinery and have come in pursuit of them, often with quite serious and dangerous results, still continues.
1 do not think there is any problem whatever with Government goodwill. The problem is that we need a change of culture about awareness of the danger of domestic violence lower down the scale and through the whole of the administrative machinery.
The Government are in agreement with that and have done their level best to help bring about a change of culture. However, it has not yet succeeded, not for want of trying, but because the task is a very big one. I do not think most people realise quite how much determination a violent ex-partner can put into the job of pursuit; quite how much cunning he can put into the job of finding the necessary information, and quite how much the man of property is still alive and well.
Since that is the case, we hope that a duty of confidentiality will serve to concentrate the mind wonderfully. It is something that a middle-rank official, as he thinks quite harmlessly, chatting about something that is not particularly explosive, may call to mind. When my wife was dealing with the local women's refuge she came across a case in which information leading to a violent pursuit had got out even through the police, who in general are more aware of the need for confidentiality in this area than almost anyone else. If such an error can happen in those circumstances, it can happen anywhere. Therefore, we need something more than assurances in this respect.
Perhaps I may quote just one case. I shall not trawl back over the flow of cases that I have brought to the attention of previous Ministers and which, I am afraid, have a certain sameness about them. This one comes from the Crossroads women's centre. The woman concerned was on benefit. She said:
"I thought I couldn't live on less money than I had, so I gave them his details and I explained that he would become violent as a result. They just said 'He won't know where you are'. I explained that I'd already moved twice and he had found out where I was. The day the CSA got in touch with him he came round to where I was living with the CSA letter. I refused to answer the door, and he was throwing stones at the window and talking through the intercom at my flat. I wouldn't let him in because I was too scared to. Fie said, 'Bring the baby to the window so I can just see her'. As I went to the window, he kicked a brick wall down and threw a brick through the window. Luckily it missed me and the baby".
I am sure that the Minister joins me in being sick and tired of listening to such stories. We need something fairly urgent to instil into all CSA staff the need to take seriously this requirement of confidentiality. I hope that this amendment is what is needed. If it is not, I trust that the Minister, whose ingenuity and goodwill are considerable, may be able to suggest what is needed. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I listened with great care to the piece that the noble Earl read from Crossroads.
1322
However, I did not understand the situation. Did, the father know where the woman was living? Was it the fact that he was expected to pay maintenance that triggered the violence? If the father of the child did not know where the woman was living, I d o not see how he could have found out simply by virtue of CSA forms. I do not know whether the noble Earl can help me here. Clearly, the woman was not in a refuge or in some place of anonymity if the father could track her down. I may have misunderstood or misheard what the noble Earl said, but this suggests to me that he knew where she was and that the search for maintenance or, indeed, any contact was such as to trigger this extremely violent man into further acts of violence.
Perhaps the noble Earl can help me in this respect because the amendment does not deal with the sort of situation where such a man would be able to track down the woman. As far as I can tell, he did not do so because of any action by the CSA.
Earl Russell: I am handicapped by the fact that I have only a single source; namely, the woman's own account. Her description is that the man came round carrying the CSA letter, which, presumably, told him that he was being assessed for the purposes of maintenance. I can only suppose that something in that letter, or attached to it, must have revealed the woman's address. If the Minister wishes to see my source of information, she is perfectly welcome to do so. I can only quote what is in it.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: In that case, the CS.A could only have known that he was the father if the mother had given the agency his name and address, together with information about his workplace, and had not asked to be assessed on grounds of having good cause—in other words, not to name him. Therefore, because the woman had co-operated by naming him and giving all that information, presumably the CSA proceeded in the usual way. Either the woman failed to make clear that she had good cause or, alternatively, he already knew where she lived. It seems to me that one or the other ought to follow.
I accept the noble Earl's point that there is only the one source of evidence and that, obviously, there are some gaps in the story that neither of us can fill in, if the noble Earl wishes to comment further on the matter, I am happy for him to do so.
10.30 p.m.
Earl Russell: My source made clear that she feared domestic violence and that she already had an injunction out against the man concerned. However, the CSA apparently threatened to cut her benefit if she did not give details. That is not the first time that has happened; I have put previous cases before the Minister. There are some people involved in the service who do not understand quite how important the good cause provisions are. The person I am discussing gave her name and authorisation but asked for her address to be kept secret, but it was not. That is her specific

1323
complaint. I do not know whether that helps the Minister sufficiently but I think that is all I can add on this case.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The noble Earl has been helpful. I find it extraordinary that the CSA did not accept an injunction as good cause. In all my experience of the CSA I have not come across a single case of a woman being exposed to violence as a result of unauthorised disclosure of information by the CSA. The noble Earl may, however, know of other circumstances and other situations.
If the person the noble Earl has mentioned has not been protected by being granted anonymity, I should very much like to see the case records to discover what is going on, as such a situation does not fit with my experience of the CSA. An injunction would be prima facie evidence of good cause, of all evidence of good cause. I do not know what information was conveyed in this case. As I say, I should like to see the case records. Even if the person concerned did not claim good cause, the CSA would not have revealed her address. The maintenance inquiry forms do not carry the address of the parent with care. The only thing I can think of is that the man knew her address independently. I am happy to explore the matter further as, like the noble Earl, I do not wish such a situation to occur. If the CSA has any responsibility for that situation arising, I should want to explore it.
Earl Russell: I am most grateful to the Minister. We are all to an extent in the dark here. However, there is another possibility which I have known in a good many other cases; namely, that the violent ex-partner may well have had a personal friend or acquaintance who happened to work in the CSA. That turned out to be the background in the police case that I mentioned just now. As it happened a long time ago we are not concerned with chasing an individual. I do not want to say which police station was involved. The CAB is the source of a great many of the cases that I have relied on. The CAB has experience of a good many cases where the parent with care has experienced violence as a result of the intervention of the CSA. It is possible that when this happens the CSA is not always the first body to know. However, if the Minister will consult the CAB on this matter we may get a little further forward.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I consult the CAB, NACAB and other organisations on a regular basis. NACAB—to an even greater extent than the CAB—is not slow to bring cases forward. I believe that, given the information we have, we have probably explored this point as far as we can. If the noble Earl has further information, I should be happy to follow it up. However, as I say, the circumstances that he mentioned do not fit my experience of the agency. I believe that some other factor is in play here. It may be the one that the noble Earl suggested; namely, that there was some improper relationship between the violent father and a CSA staff member. That is, of course, to be deplored.
1324
Amendments Nos. 42 and 100 seek to create a legal obligation for the CSA to protect the confidentiality of information provided by parents with care on benefit who apply for a child support calculation. We take that obligation extremely seriously. 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 which relates to a particular person. Such an offence can, on conviction, result in a prison sentence of up to two years. Since 1995 there have been at least three dismissals of staff for unlawful disclosure of information even though that did not lead to violence, as far as I am aware. The unlawful disclosure may have occurred as a result of friendship networks, as the noble Earl mentioned.
Clearly information has to be disclosed to the other parent to allow him or her to understand how maintenance liability has been assessed. At the moment it includes, for example, details of a nonresident parent's net income and the relevant qualifying children. Legislation permits and specifies disclosure of this kind. However, the CSA must never disclose a parent's address or any other information which may lead to that person being located.
Parents also have a right to refuse to allow a tribunal or court to reveal such details. This is an important safeguard. It protects the whereabouts of parents, in particular of women who may be at risk of abuse from their ex-partners if their address becomes known. Certainly my understanding following all such cases brought to me by MPs and others very close to the subject—obviously there are hundreds of letters a year on CSA issues—is that the CSA, in this area at least, has an excellent record. The CSA also rightly reassures parents with care, when they are applying for child support, that their whereabouts will remain confidential.
I am, of course, aware of tragic cases in which parents have suffered violence as a result of being traced by ex-partners through official records—that happens—and we are trying to do what we can to avoid any repetition. But I am not aware of any case, in all the seven years of the CSA's existence, in which a parent with care has been harmed after being located through CSA records. School records and so on are matters over which we perhaps do not, unfortunately, have the same degree of control.
This guaranteed confidentiality carries with it the ability of the CSA to sort out maintenance without any need for contact between the parents. In addition, our reforms will ensure that maintenance liability is based on simple rules, which are easy to understand and hard to avoid. So that even where there is hostility between the parents, the reforms we are proposing will reduce that risk rather than increase it, simply because so little information is required from the non-resident parent. In other words, she should face a reduced risk compared to the current situation. Therefore Amendments Nos. 42 and 100 are both unnecessary. We already provide adequate and robust protection of personal information provided by clients to the CSA.

1325
I could go on to talk about Section 50 of the 1991 Act, which makes it unlawful to disclose and so on. However, the amendment seeks to provide protection which is already provided under Section 50 of the 1991 Act, which prevents unauthorised disclosure of information for all CSA clients. As I said, if the noble Earl wishes to come back to me with any particular case, I shall be very happy to look at it, but, with that assurance, I hope that the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Earl Russell: I am most grateful to the Minister for the care and concern with which she has greeted this information. I would never for one moment have expected anything else from her.
That is the paragraph from which I have been quoting. I was not intending to make any specific criticism of the CSA. I said that I was dealing with a general problem about unawareness in our culture. In another of the cases in the letter to which I referred—not the same case—the CSA inadvertently disclosed without realising what it was detonating. The man rang up to say that he was going round to attack the woman, and the CSA immediately rang her up to warn her that he was coming. So, realising what it had done, in that case the CSA did its level best to make amends. I allege no ill will; I allege simply a lack of awareness.
I am faced here with two totally convincing stories, told by two totally impeccable sources, which are in fundamental conflict. When I am faced with that as an academic problem, I tend to assume that the sources of information available to the two parties are different, and that each of them is telling the whole truth as it is known to them.
The point that I made just now, that the people to whom this happens do not take the CSA as their first port of call to say what is happening to them, is perhaps the most important one. I am certain that these problems do not reach the Minister's desk; I am certain that usually they do not reach Faith Boardman's desk. But they go on happening.
I wish I believed that this amendment was unnecessary. If the Minister can persuade me between now and Report stage that there is another way of tackling the problem, I will be very willing to consider that. What I cannot be persuaded of is that the present situation is satisfactory, however great the good faith of those in charge. But, for the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Default and interim maintenance decisions]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Dean of Harptree): In calling Amendment No. 43, I should point out that if it is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 44.
Earl Russellmoved Amendment No. 43:
Page 4, line 40, leave out from beginning to end of line 2 on page 5.
1326
The noble Earl said: Amendment No. 43 is a probing amendment. It deals with the provision to make default and interim maintenance decisions. This is another Cambyses clause which says that the Secretary of State can do whatever he likes. I ask: what does he like? And what else could he do if he did like? I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Amendment No. 43 seeks to remove the regulation-making power from Clause 4 which permits the Secretary of State to set procedures in respect of default and interim maintenance decisions. Does the noble Earl wish me to explain fully what the clause does? I am happy to do so but I realise the time of night. Does the noble Earl wish me to outline the purpose of the clause?
Earl Russell: In a cursory way.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: How could the noble Earl invite me to do something in a cursory way?
Earl Russell: The noble Baroness mentioned the time of night.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Every academic listening to the noble Earl should reject such a phrase.
The clause substitutes a new Section 12 which allows liability to be set at a default or interim rate where it is not possible to make a decision on full liability. In the existing scheme a punitive interim maintenance assessment is imposed where full information cannot be obtained or the non-resident parent fails to cooperate with the CSA. However, these assessments do not work. The interim maintenance assessments are very high—averaging about £90 a week—arid the vast majority of non-resident parents, almost 90 per cent, do not pay a penny. That is largely because by the time the agency imposes such a punitive interim maintenance assessment—hereafter known as an IMA—large arrears have already built up and enforcement becomes difficult. If there is a cliff to climb, people do not climb it, particularly when the non-resident parent is self-employed. There is no incentive on the non-resident parent to pay the interim assessment because when, finally, the information is supplied, liability reverts to the full maintenance assessment, which is nearly always lower.
In the new scheme we will be making decisions about maintenance in a matter of days. Where a nonresident parent refuses to provide information about his income we will be able to get it either direct from his employer or, in self-employed cases, via the Inland Revenue. Parents who refuse to provide information will also face fines of up to £1,000. However, there may be some circumstances where a final decision on liability cannot be reached straightaway; for example, where someone has recently started selfemployment—he has stopped being employed and has become self-employed—and it is not straightforward to estimate what his current income is and therefore what his liability is, or where a variation application remains outstanding. To ensure that some simple

1327
maintenance is, nevertheless, paid in these cases we are introducing a simple system of default rates to get maintenance flowing. We want to avoid debts building up and we want people to pay as soon as possible.
Clause 4 provides for default rates of liability to be used where there is not enough information to calculate a rate of maintenance liability. We intend that default rates of maintenance will be put in place quickly and that they will be set according to whether there are one, two or three or more children to be maintained. We envisage rates of £30, £40 and £50 for those children, which reflects the average net income of the non-resident parent. In other words, they are not punitive. They are simply an averaging—a default payment which someone will pay until the final determination has been made. This will prevent large amounts of arrears building up and, because default rates will be put in place quickly, they will be easier to enforce.
An interim maintenance decision will be put in place where an application for a variation was made at the outset but has not been determined at the point where the information is available to the Secretary of State to make a Schedule 1 calculation. The powers in this clause will be used to get maintenance flowing where all of the information needed to calculate final liability cannot be obtained quickly. The clause helps to ensure that payments will come regularly.
Regulations will be used to set out the procedures to be followed in making decisions about the imposition and amount of the default rate. Procedural rules are more suitable for secondary legislation and the default rate, which is intended to reflect average child support liabilities, will need to be updated from time to time to reflect changes in earnings. I am pleased to say that the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee, when it considered this legislation, found it necessary to comment on only a few delegated powers. It did not comment on the delegated power in Clause 4.
Amendment No. 43 would compromise our ability to deliver a flexible and responsive scheme which allows maintenance to flow. The scheme is not punitive but is based on the average earnings or the average income of non-resident parents and gets the maintenance flowing early. In the light of that explanation, I hope that the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Higgins: Before the Minister sits down, it may be more convenient to raise this point at this stage. Is it the case that if a person overpays, that person does not receive the money back?
10.45 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: If it is a default payment, yes. We do not envisage that happening very often. The kind of situation where we envisage a default payment occurring—an interim maintenance payment occurring—is where someone has, for example, been stringing the department along for quite a long period of time. The normal situation is that a
1328
maintenance assessment is sent out to someone within four to six weeks. Therefore, questions of default payments should not arise. Where we suspect they are likely to arise is where there is, for example, a collusive employer: it may be a small family business, a garage, for example, in which the son is working with the father and they are stringing the system along.
We want the default powers to be available if at the end of the day someone is, to put it colloquially, messing the agency around and we want the money to flow. The provision is not punitive in the sense that the figure is an average amount which we believe he should have been paying all along. If he pays properly, he will move on to his real assessment, which may be higher or lower. If his real assessment is higher, he will be expected to pay the rest; if it is lower, he will not be given a refund, so to speak, because he should not have got into a default situation. Had he come clean with the agency, an interim maintenance assessment based on his estimated income would have been in place. I suspect that the noble Lord is anticipating some other amendments which may arise later. With that information, perhaps he may feel able not to move them.
Earl Russell: My Lords, if the Minister will forgive my intervening, who is the judge of whether the person is stringing the system along?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: To produce a maintenance assessment, the agency basically needs only three pieces of information: the name of the nonresident partner's employer, his net earnings and the number of children he has. That information should be able to be produced by means of a telephone call in a matter of hours. There may be occasions when a person is, for example, away on holiday, but in the normal course of events that information should be available to the agency within a couple of days. The agency should, in turn, be able to set the estimate of the maintenance he should pay within a matter of a few days and that money should be flowing in four to six weeks.
If the process is drawn out—if he fails to produce information about his earnings and the like or the employer says that he cannot give certain information—at that point we may need the backstop of default powers. I do not conceive of their being used very often. Given the simplicity of the system and the alternative of using a fine and adding £8,000, that may be a more appropriate way of proceeding. But the default powers are there if after an appropriate period of time we have failed to obtain the information to make the maintenance assessment and to get the money flowing.
This provision replaces the interim maintenance assessment. The previous administration recognised the need for a punitive interim maintenance assessment. Our proposal is not punitive. It is based simply on average payments. But we need a backstop in case someone strings the agency along and elongates

1329
a process which can be completed in a 10-minute telephone conversation. We need that power for the sake of the children.
Earl Russell: Has the Minister, in a way that is not in the least cursory, told me that the Secretary of State is judge and party in his own cause?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Obviously, if this is regarded as unreasonable the person will have the right to go to a tribunal and to contest the matter. At the end of the day, the information required to determine an assessment is something that I suspect every person in this Chamber could produce simply by direct answer to a question and without referral to any other document.
We are not talking about the complicated arrangements that currently exist whereby it would be reasonable for the non-resident parent to have to consult records to see whether he has kept them and so forth. There can he no excuses for delay, apart from circumstances where, for example, someone is changing his occupation or seeking a variation on the grounds of high contact costs and the like—whereupon the assessment will then be an interim maintenance assessment which is not a default assessment but based, by discussion and negotiation, on the best assessment of the person's income. The default power is there where someone is failing to respond in a reasonable way and is stringing the agency along. We are setting down a working assumption of what he should pay. If he does like it, the answer is to get a move on.
Earl Russell: I accept that the Minister is making a perfectly sensible short-term case in a particular context. However, the Secretary of State is beginning to appear a bit of a Pooh-Bah. He is the legislator who lays down very wide powers for his own use; he then collects the money; he then decides whether people are stringing him along; and he then collects the money if they do. It is not a particularly controlled power: it is the Secretary of State wearing one hat, talking to the Secretary of State wearing another hat, passing on the power to the Secretary of State having a third hat. It is not a particularly controlled system and it does not seem a particularly constitutional one. Nevertheless, I do not intend to pursue the matter any further now. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 44 not moved.]
Clause 4 agreed to.
Earl Russellmoved Amendment No. 45:
After Clause 4, insert the following new clause—
DETERMINATION OF BENEFIT ENTITLEMENT: MAINTENANCE DISREGARD
(" . The Secretary of State shall by regulations provide that, in determining the entitlement of a parent with care or his partner (if any) to income support or income-based jobseekers allowance, there shall be disregarded as income the first £15 of any maintenance paid each week to the parent with care.").
1330
The noble Earl said: This amendment seeks to increase the £10 maintenance disregard to i15. Before I play Oliver Twist, I congratulate the Minister. The £10 disregard is one of her great achievements. We have worked together in this cause in the past. The noble Baroness is the one who has been able to deliver, and I congratulate her on it. Nevertheless, I am sure that the Minister will not blame me for playing Oliver Twist. After all, it is the duty of an opposition. Both of us have always argued that the best way to secure compliance is not by a series of threats and penalties but by giving people an incentive to co-operate so that children are better off. This measure does that, but we believe that if it is a little bigger it may do a little better. Since I am sure that the Minister can script the rest of the argument herself, at this time of night I shall say only that I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: It is late. Basically, one needs to give a full description of what the Government are doing for lone parents to show that this is part of a balanced set of proposals. We have gone for a £10 disregard as opposed to nil in order to get parents with care to co-operate with the agency and ensure that a direct benefit goes to the children to tackle child poverty. Obviously, it is also an encouragement to fathers who see that some of the money that is provided goes to the children.
The noble Earl proposes that we raise the sum to £15. We expect that over time our reforms will at least double the proportion of children and families on income support for whom maintenance is paid. Together with the new child maintenance premium, this means that about 600,000 children and families on income support will see the benefit of maintenance for the first time. Obviously, while lone parents would like a £15, £20 or £25 disregard, none the less £10 will make a substantial difference to the material wellbeing of such families. The average family headed by a lone parent receives an income of about £88 a week. The premium will increase family income by well over 10 per cent, which itself will have a substantial effect on child poverty. That is in addition to the increases which lone parents with children on income support have received under this Government since 1997. For example, the rate for a child under 11 has almost doubled over three years from £16.90 to over £30 in the autumn. In addition, it was announced in the Budget that there would be an increase in the earnings disregard. Consequently, parents on income support will see their incomes go up in terms of benefit levels and earnings disregard. Obviously, parents in work will see the application of WFTC and the minimum wage.
If the noble Earl views this in the context of everything else that we are doing for lone parents and the substantial cost to the child maintenance premium as is, which is an extra £65 million, I hope that he will regard this as reasonable. This is cost neutral. None the less, I believe that the £10 is a generous addition to lone parents' budgets over and beyond all the other

1331
changes by government. With that explanation, I hope that the noble Earl understands why the Government are not minded to raise the figure to £15 as he wishes.
Earl Russell: I thank the Minister for her reply and hear what she says. When the noble Baroness looks at the effect of this measure will she also monitor whether there is any increased compliance as a result of the introduction of the premium? That may affect the costings and, in turn, debates with the Treasury. If that could be done it would be rather interesting.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I do not think that there is any way in which we shall be able to determine the degree of compliance associated with the child premium as opposed to everything else we are doing—above all, making the formula so simple that CSA staff will be able to spend most of their time ensuring that there is compliance rather than trying to do a maintenance assessment which is then never delivered in terms of cash for children.
If the noble Earl can tell me how one could isolate that one variable amount from the 50 or 70 other variables involved in the changes we are making, I shall be interested to hear from him.
Earl Russell: I wondered about that question while I was on my feet. The answer has occurred to me at this moment: the Minister brings in the Bill with the £10 attached and after a year increases the amount to £15 and sees whether compliance improves. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 [Departure .from usual rules for calculating Maintenance]:
[Amendments Nos. 46 and 47 not moved.]
Lord Higginshad given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 48:
Page 6, line 12, leave out ("one of the conditions") and insert ("the condition").
The noble Lord said: I do not propose to move Amendments Nos. 48 or 51 which stand in my name. However, the noble Earl may wish to move Amendments Nos. 49 and 50 with which I have considerable sympathy.
Earl Russell: I was wondering whether it was rather late at night to go into an issue as big as this. Does the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, wish me to move the amendment now?
Lord Higgins: That is a matter for the noble Earl. It seemed to me that it raised important questions. It is a matter for the noble Earl to consider whether it would be more appropriate to do so at a later stage. I do not think that it would be helpful at this stage to move my amendments, which are technical in nature.
Earl Russell: I shall go along with that. It is somewhat late for a really big issue, so I shall not move my amendment.
[Amendment No. 48 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 49 to 51 not moved.]
Earl Russellhad given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 52:
Page 7, line 38, leave out ("and") and insert ("or").
Baroness Buscombe: I hope that noble Lords will forgive me for being slow in rising to my feet. I had expected the noble Earl, Lord Russell, to move Amendment No. 52.
I should like also to speak to Amendments Nos. 53 to 70. In essence we want people's financial arrangements to be determined on the basis of their income and commitments. The Bill in its entirety will not, we fear, stand up to the need to reform and improve the workings of the CSA unless the Government accept that not all situations are the same and uniform. We need to respond to that by helping people to cope.
Many of the relationships that brought about the happy event of the children in the first place have broken down because people are unable to cope. If we make it harder, who will ultimately lose out? It will be the children.
Our amendments in relation to Clause 5 and Schedule 2 are saying that we must respond to real life situations—everyday individual commitments—and then there is a chance that the children will fully benefit from what is already, for them, a tough situation.
As my honourable friend in another place, Mr Eric Pickles, said during Committee stage,
"what might be equal and fair justice for one person might be rough justice for someone else. That is why the variations we seek are important".
We agree with the Government that the present formula is too complex. What we want to ensure is that a simplified formula is fair, equitable and flexible.
In that case, we believe that it is right to stipulate on the face of the Bill a number of foreseeable living costs which might impact on the welfare of children in any relationship; for example, costs in respect of any handicapped child or children with other special needs, the significant costs of childcare, costs of boarding school and the often high costs of travel to work. We list further examples in what I must make clear are probing amendments, albeit important, which we have tabled in order to seek reassurance from the Minister that her Government are as concerned as we are to ensure fairness and flexibility for the sake of the children.
As the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said tonight in relation to Clause 1, if you set out to avoid complexity you avoid the real world. I entirely agree. I beg to move.
11 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: As we have heard, all these amendments relate to the provisions under which the Secretary of State may agree to a variation from

1333
the normal rules of calculation. Perhaps I may spend a few moments explaining why we are making the change.
We believe that simple and consistent rules will provide a clearer and more efficient child support service for children and get money flowing regularly and reliably. Parents will be able to see at a glance how much maintenance they must pay even before they break up.
We believe that the new approach will result in a fair calculation of maintenance in the vast majority of cases. In other words, it is a straightforward rate. However, we recognise that there will always be exceptional cases where the child support rates do not properly reflect a non-resident parent's ability to support his children. For example, he may need to spend an exceptionally large amount of money keeping in touch with the children, or the net income used in working out his liability may not properly reflect the resources available to him. We therefore intend to provide for a variation from the normal rules in such truly exceptional cases and circumstances.
Members of the Committee will be aware that the current scheme also attempts to allow for expenses not covered by the formula assessment. The existing departures scheme was introduced in December 1996. Departures were heralded as introducing added flexibility into a rigid formula and they were widely welcomed. But departures produced more complexity, confusion and delay into a cumbersome system.
We have therefore looked very closely at the expenses which merit a variation of liability. We have two grounds. We believe that parents should put children, not other expenses, first. That is why we have sought to distinguish between, on the one hand, expenses which a non-resident parent should meet from income after meeting his responsibility to his children—for instance, housing costs and travel to work—and, on the other hand, primarily child-related expenses which could affect his ability to pay child support. We intend to allow variations only in respect of the latter. For the first time, they will include the costs of the overnight stay after travelling a long distance, not just the petrol costs and costs of travel for contact.
We also intend to allow variations to increase liability where the income on which the maintenance calculation has been based does not reflect the nonresident parent's true ability to pay. For example, the case of the student who may be exempt but calculated as a mature student with a high income, or where someone is self-employed and declaring an income of, say, £100 a week but none the less is managing to live in a rather large house, with a rather large car, taking rather long holidays and is clearly living a lifestyle that deviates from the declared income. Again, the parent with care may be able to seek a variation.
Equally, as capital and interest from capital will no longer feature in the normal calculations, we have already indicated in the Bill that we will be looking at cases where the non-resident parent has assets exceeding a value to be prescribed. That will prevent
1334
people shifting their living costs from income to capital in order to protect their money. The new Schedule 4B, as introduced by Schedule 2, provides details of the cases and circumstances where a variation may be allowed.
I turn to Amendments Nos. 55 to 70. The noble Baroness appeared to say that she was in favour of simplicity in general but that complexity may exist in a particular circumstance. I hope that she will accept the warning not only of her honourable friend Mr Pickles but of her honourable friend Edward Leigh, who said that we should avoid seeking to transfer to the appeals system the complexity which we are getting rid of in the assessment process. We are worried about what we believe she may assume is exceptional.
Amendments Nos. 64 and 66, for example, would enable every non-resident parent to claim a variation in respect of housing costs or high housing costs. Amendments Nos. 56 and 57 would allow the nonresident parent who maintained contact with his child to claim a variation in respect of any and all his expenses, regardless of whether or not the expenses are in any way related to the period of contact. Therefore, the allowable costs in those cases would include not only the costs of travelling to see the child, but also the parent's housing costs, travel-to-work costs and, indeed, any other costs. The noble Baroness's amendments almost precisely reinvent the complexity of the current formula.
Perhaps I may give an example of the complexity of costs on housing, which I believe was cited by the noble Baroness. As a starting point, if we were to include housing costs and were to continue to do so, staff would have to pick their way through the minefield of different mortgage and loan arrangements which currently exist in order to establish which applies in any particular case. They would have to establish how much of the repayment is in respect of interest, how much is in respect of capital, whether an endowment policy or investment plan has been obtained for the purpose of discharging the loan and whether it is intended to accrue profits. They would then go on to consider the extent to which any or all of the costs in question should be allowed by establishing who is responsible for the costs, whether the responsibility is shared, whether repayments of loans taken out for repairs and improvements to the property should be allowed, whether the property is used for both business and residential purposes, and, where the parent has more than one home, a decision must be made on which property is to be regarded as the principal home.
I could go on to talk about housing benefit, and so on, but I have tried to give an illustration with regard to only one cost—housing benefit—of the amount of complexity that would be introduced if we allowed it as a variation. I cannot conceive that any non-resident parent would not seek a variation on grounds of housing costs, even if that were to be rejected as not being exceptional.
Lord Higgins: I wonder whether the noble Baroness will allow me to ask whether she believes that any of the items specified would have some justification for variation?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I wonder what the noble Lord has in mind. Can he indicate to what he believes we should give particular attention?
Lord Higgins: I am looking at the question the other way round. We have provided a long list, and the noble Baroness proposes to reject all of them. I am asking whether she believes that any of them might reasonably provide the basis for a variation.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am looking at the particular words. Amendment No. 56 concerns exceptionally high housing costs, travel-to-work costs, illness or disability costs. That includes all the items that are currently in the existing formula. Therefore, we are back to where we were. We then add to that payments made by the parent with care or nonresident parent to support an elderly or invalid relative. Yes, those would be new and would add to the complexity of the system, as would costs in respect of a handicapped child, joint debts incurred, and so on. Significant costs of childcare are also mentioned.
That shopping list not only takes the complexity of the existing formula and places it in the appeal process, but adds for good measure a few hundred other avenues to pursue. The amendments extend a whole range of additional items above and beyond those currently in the complexity of the assessment. They suggest that we take the assessment, go to appeal and add some new appeal grounds as well. Is that really what the noble Lord wants?
Lord Higgins: No, but that was not the question that I posed to the Minister. I understand that she has problems with items which duplicate existing provisions or introduce new ones. However, given the long list, I am asking whether she believes that any provide the basis for variation. Perhaps I may also quote an example. Does she believe, for example, that there is a case for variation with regard to costs in respect of a handicapped child?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: No, and I hope that noble Lords opposite may share this philosophy. Basically, we are reducing the amount of average assessment that the non-resident parent will pay. On average, that sum will come down from approximately £38 or £39 to approximately £30 or £31 per week. We are making that sum less. We are leaving more in the pocket with which to meet those additional costs. We are not saying that they are not perfectly proper items of expenditure. But we are saying that they should not be put ahead of the primary responsibility of maintaining the child of the first family.
The only two grounds for variation are where the non-caring parent is incurring costs which are associated with the support of the children of the first family, which it is proper should recognised; or,
1336
alternatively, where the basis of income on which the assessment has been made is not regarded as the proper basis of income by the parent with care and she seeks a variation on that ground.
Perhaps we may stay with the first of those. I have given the example of exceptional costs of contact—overnight stays. Another example may be where the non-resident parent—the father, in this case—is a sergeant in the army and the child has been at boarding school. The father does not wish to disturb the child's arrangements. Therefore the child stays on at boarding school. The father is paying for the boarding school maintenance costs—not the fees for the education—so that it would be unreasonable for him to be paying the parent with care for all the care and provision which she would normally provide. That is being provided by the boarding school and, in that case, the father would be asked to pay twice over. We take that into account.
Another example would be where the father, the non-resident parent, has taken over meeting the housing costs of the child—that is, the mortgage—but has retained no equity stake in the property. That would properly be regarded as a contribution to the child's maintenance.
But our touchstone is not what expenses he has to meet in his life after he has left the first family. The touchstone is whether he is supporting legitimately the child of the first family and whether there are expenses associated with that which we should take into account. That is our touchstone, apart from the second ground of variation which is the manipulation or misrepresentation of income.
The noble Baroness is welcome to press me further in relation to any of those grounds because it is an important issue. But that is our philosophy. We are saying that these are all perfectly proper expenditure items but the non-caring parent makes a decision on what he spends in relation to housing, travel to work, his car or support for other members of the family after he has discharged his primary obligation—the support of the children of the first family.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for that very full and clear explanation. I shall consider carefully, when I am a little more lively, what she has said in Hansard. I may wish to return to this matter on Report.
[Amendment No. 52 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 53 not moved.]
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Substituted Schedules 4A and 4B to the 1991 Act]:
[Amendments Nos. 54 to 69 not moved.]
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Variations: revision and supersession]:
[Amendment No. 70 not moved.]
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clauses 8 and 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 [Appeals to appeal tribunals]:
Baroness Buscombemoved Amendment No. 71:
Page 10. line 4. leave out ("an appeal tribunal") and insert ("a county court").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 72 to 75 and 199. In tabling these amendments, we are highlighting our concern that the levels of maintenance are vitally important to all the parties and to the children and there needs to be a system of appeal where appropriate cases can be reviewed.
We believe that that appeal should be to the district judges at the county court who are already experienced in dealing with maintenance and have an existing and well-used procedure. District judges are not only well experienced in that sort of work but are given a wide discretion to take into account all the circumstances including, for example, the earning capacity of an absent parent to ensure that justice can be done. It would be quite possible for the regulations to make it clear that the formula would normally apply and exceptional circumstances would be needed before a court would adjust the formula.
Even in criminal matters, citizens are entitled to appear before the court to ask that their individual circumstances be taken into account before a fine is imposed. Here we are talking about assessments that may involve a person paying up to a quarter of their income for 16 years. It must be right that they have an opportunity to be heard in appropriate cases. An application to court would also enable the applicant to apply for funding by the Legal Services Commission so that they could be assisted if that were appropriate or necessary.
Although it is suggested by the Government that that would result in a significant increase in the work of the county court, we believe that that is unlikely. Ten years ago, before the CSA began, all maintenance matters were dealt with, in any event, through the courts and the courts were quite capable of coping. Here we are talking about the courts looking only at a minority of matters where there are good grounds to appeal against an unfair assessment. The absence of such a right has led to much of the resentment that has undermined the current CSA and, unfortunately, the Bill does not address that point. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, for introducing these amendments. I like the sound of them. To me they appear to meet a real need. In the course of discussing them I want to remind the Minister that on Clause 2 she said that the Government considered the possibility of allowing those cases to go to the courts using guidelines based on the CSA formula but with the licence to depart from them in exceptional circumstances. When we put the Minister's remarks together with the speech that
1338
the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, has just made and with my concerns, we have a basis for reaching common ground, which would be rather nice.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Amendment No. 199 would remove from Schedule 9, which lists repeals and revocations in the 1991 Act, the provision to repeal Section 46B(3).
Earl Russell: Perhaps I can save the Minister some time. I shall not move Amendment No. 199. so there is no need to reply to it.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Amendments Nos. 71, 72, 73, 74 and 75 relate to Clause 10. To set this group of amendments in context I would like to outline, briefly, the purpose of this clause. Clause 10 sets out clearly the child support decisions which carry a right of appeal. It provides the framework for appeals and tribunal procedure which will be, as now, specified in detail in regulations.
In a reformed child support scheme, we want liability to be established quickly. That means that the agency should, wherever possible, settle disputes without the need for a formal appeal. Parents will have access to an efficient and effective disputes service. However, we recognise that the right of appeal represents an important guarantee of parents' rights. The tribunal system allows child support liability to be considered by an independent body with legal expertise where disputes cannot be settled in discussion with the agency.
As now, in the reformed scheme appeals may be made against decisions relating to child support liability. Where a benefit penalty is imposed, because a parent with care claiming income support opts out of child support without good cause, a right of appeal will still arise. There will also be rights of appeal against financial penalties for late payment of maintenance and, if and when those are introduced, any fees.
Our proposals build on changes to the appeals system for child support introduced from June 1999. These changes were part of the move to a simpler and more streamlined decision-making and appeals process across the Department of Social. Security. Where a parent is unhappy with a decision and chooses to appeal, the appeal should be handled and resolved as quickly and efficiently as possible.
Perhaps I may turn to Amendment No. '71 and the consequential amendments, Amendments Nos. 74 and 75. These amendments would give child support clients the right of appeal to a county court rather than an appeal system. I believe that this would be a deeply retrograde step. The court system, although independent, was widely seen as having failed to protect children's rights to proper maintenance. Parents with care often found difficulty in getting a maintenance order enforced. Too often non-resident parents were able to avoid ongoing responsibility for their children. This left children in poverty and the taxpayer to pick up the bill.

1339
Many parents find the prospect of going to court intimidating. They are more likely to feel at ease in an informal tribunal setting. Using the court system will result in further delays and may cause confusion because another jurisdiction will be involved. In addition, courts are adversarial in their approach, which would lead to greater confrontation in child support appeals. This conflicts with the need to set child support in the wider family setting and promote consensus between parents. Moreover, the tribunal system benefits from the presence of a presenting officer whose role is to explain the decision under appeal and assist in ensuring that all parties to an appeal get a fair hearing. The costs of involving the courts would also be substantially higher—around £20 million a year compared with £5.5 million for the appeals service.
Amendments Nos. 72 and 73 seek to place on the face of the Bill a right of appeal to a tribunal against the level of the maintenance assessed. Again, this is unnecessary. Parents already have a right of appeal against a decision about whether any child support maintenance is payable and, if so, how much.
I believe that to move out of the jurisdiction of the CSA to a court jurisdiction for appeals would effectively undermine much of what we are trying to do; namely, to keep this as a simple and straightforward administrative procedure. We wish to remain within the tribunal system rather than having the courts used for appeals which would start the process all over again in terms of what the CSA appeals system is seeking to do. I say again that I believe that would be a retrograde step. In the light of what I have said, I hope that the noble Baroness will not wish to press her amendments.
Earl Russell: I know that it is late at night, but I do not think that I can let that response pass without comment. If the Minister is telling the Committee that people find the courts more intimidating than the CSA, that is something that I would find difficult to believe, even if it came from Rory Bremner.
As for the enforcement powers of the courts, the Minister knows perfectly well that it is the contention of the courts that they did not get help from other agencies, including the police and the DSS, which they might legitimately have expected. They did not receive adequate staffing for enforcement and they did not get sufficient funding or powers.
Furthermore, all the information on which the Minister relies dates from a period before the Children Act which put right some of these matters. I shall not spend time on that, but if the Minister does not wish to prolong our proceedings, I hope that she will not repeat too many statements with which she knows I will stand up and argue.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: On the contrary, I believe those statements to be right: that the courts were a form of lottery; they failed to deliver money to children; they were adversarial and inequitable. On the
1340
same day, cases could be heard of two people on the same income in which one person was asked to pay £5 while the other was asked to pay £50 on an income of £100. If the noble Earl thinks that that is reasonable and fair, then we have very different conceptions of what comprises fairness.
If the noble Earl widens the debate into deeper issues concerning the effectiveness and appropriateness of the court procedure, then I shall wish to challenge him all the way. The courts failed children and we shall not go back to that system again, either to make basic maintenance assessments or as a form of appeal.
Earl Russell: I did not introduce this. The Minister has introduced two different decisions. She has not told me the circumstances of those decisions and so I can have no opinion without knowing those circumstances.
As regards the point about the courts being adversarial, does she seriously maintain that that remained the case after the passage of the Children Act? I do not think that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, would agree with that.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: If the noble Earl asks me which system I believe to be in the best interests of a child where a father wishes to reduce his maintenance payments, under the noble Earl's theory he can either go to court and slog it out in an adversarial setting saying, "This is how little I value my child; I want to pay less maintenance"—because that is the nature of an adversarial court setting; alternatively, a tribunal can sit which is informal, chaired by a person with legal experience but in which that adversarial climate does not dominate. I know which system I believe to be in the best interests of the child.
However, my argument does not rest only on the adversarial nature of the courts. The outcome of a court hearing depends on which lawyers are employed and which court hears the case. That means that people in similar circumstances could be treated in very dissimilar ways, usually to the disadvantage of the child and the parent with care. Usually they are the ones unable to afford the most hard-hitting lawyers.
I must tell the noble Earl that I have read and re-read the research which persuaded the previous administration to depart from the court system and move to an agency system. I believe that it was entirely right then and that we are entirely right now. It is obvious that subsequently the system became too complicated, but I refute any suggestion that it would be fairer for children if we returned to the courts. That would be good only for those non-resident parents who are still deeply angry. However, we are not seeking to produce a system that caters to the anger management of non-resident parents. We wish to produce a system that addresses the well-being of children. I am completely persuaded that the courts are not the right vehicle to do that, either at the assessment level or at the appeal level.
Baroness Blatch: I thank the Minister for her full and clear explanation of the amendments. I am

1341
concerned about her reply and I have some sympathy with the comments made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. For that reason, I should like to consider carefully what she has said and perhaps return to the matter on Report. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 72 to 75 not moved.]
Clause 10 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 76 not moved.]
Clauses 11 and 12 agreed to.
Clause 13 [Information—offences]:
[Amendment No. 77 not moved.]
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clause 14 [Inspectors]:
[Amendment No. 78 not moved.]
Clause 14 agreed to.
Clause 15 [Presumption of parentage in child support cases]:
Baroness Hollis of Heighammoved Amendment No. 79:
Page 14, line 4, leave out ("that person's") and insert ("the child's").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 79 [Tests for determining parentage]:
[Amendment No. 80 not moved.]
Clause 79 agreed to.
Clause 80 agreed to.
Schedule 8 agreed to.
Clause 16 [Disqualification from driving]:
Baroness Hollis of Heighammoved Amendments Nos. 81 to 83:
Page 14. line 18, at beginning insert ("in England and Wales").
Page 14, line 19, at end insert ("or 38").
Page 14, line 21, leave out ("a magistrates'") and insert ("the").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Earl Russellmoved Amendment No. 84:
Page 14, line 30, at end insert (", to buy his food, to take his children to school, or to attend medical treatment").
The noble Earl said: With this, I want to speak also to Amendment No. 86 and Clause 16 stand part.
This clause introduces the deprivation of driving licences as a penalty, which we believe is entirely inappropriate and out of place. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, on having pipped me to the post by putting his name to an amendment to delete the clause before I could do so—but I shall be with him when the time comes.
I am well aware that there is exemption for persons who need a driving licence to earn their living, but in our flexible labour market people who have a job now may not have it in six weeks or six months. If the Minister recalls our debates on housing benefit change of circumstances, she will be as aware of that point as I can possibly make her.
1342
It is already clear that people who do not have a driving licence are disadvantaged in the search for employment, often severely. Amendment No. 86 provides that persons subject to that penalty shall be exempt from the actively seeking work rules for, the period for which they have no driving licence.
Amendment No. 84 deals with other reasons for needing a car. I specified those who need a car to provide food; to take the children to school which, in the case of shared care or in the case of children of a second marriage, may be a real need; or to attend medical treatment. I did not put in to attend the bank or the post office, but in the light of some of the remarks on earlier amendments I may do so before we return to this on Report.
The provision in this clause is another blow to rural England. There are a great many areas in England where one simply cannot travel about unless one has a car. If one should work in those areas, one is unemployable until one retrieves the driving licence. So the Government here are proposing to shoot themselves in the foot. In general, they want more people to be employed. But they are here introducing a provision which means that fewer people will be employed.
I observe that the Minister shakes her head. We have been known to disagree before and will be known to disagree again; and this seems to be one of those cases. I said that this is a blow to rural England; but it is not only rural England. If one is looking for a job in London, if travel to work is radial, across London rather than in and out of the centre, one may well find that one cannot do it without a car. My son, looking for vacation employment when he was a student, was offered a job doing night work in a warehouse, five miles away across London. There was absolutely no way he could do that job unless he had a car to travel to and fro. There was no bus service, even in the day time, and it was an area in which I would not advise anyone to work, and the job centre would not advise anyone to work either, if it meant walking afterwards.
There are plenty of other urban areas in the same situation. So we are introducing here a severe restriction on people's freedom of action; on their chance to be employed. Does the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, wish to intervene?
11.30 p.m.
Baroness Crawley: I just wanted to ask the noble Earl if he would agree with me that all that has to be done in order to retrieve the driving licence is to pay the maintenance.
Earl Russell: The whole basis of the disagreement between me and the Government is that I believe that there are a number of cases under the formula where people cannot pay what is required of them. We had the same argument over the poll tax. The government always said exactly that in defending the poll tax; that people only have to pay up. There were a good many who could not. I can recall struggling to make Ministers admit that. I never succeeded. I do not seem

1343
to be doing any better in getting Ministers to admit it in relation to the CSA. But the problems appear to me to be identical and I shall proceed on that basis.
Anyway, even if the person is totally in the wrong—let us assume that for the purpose of argument—does it do any good either to the children, the Government or to the economy of the country to render them unemployable? I should have thought there was a strong argument for saying no to that question. It is on that basis that I tabled these amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Higgins: This is a matter which I raised at Second Reading and one which we feel is important. When this proposal that people should lose their driving licence if they did not meet the requirements of the Child Support Agency was first introduced, it was not clear whether it was to be an additional penalty on top of other penalties, or a new penalty. Nonetheless, it was heralded as a breakthrough when the matter was raised. At Second Reading it was hammered pretty badly on several grounds, not least because there was no connection at all between the penalty on the one hand and the offence on the other. When the matter was discussed at Second Reading I formulated the arguments myself, because they seemed to be overwhelming. This is a strange way of proceeding.
The argument made out by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, was also somewhat strange. He said that this was somehow a blow at rural England. That seems to me to be overstating the situation since it is only a blow at those people in rural England who are not paying their maintenance. The argument put forward against the proposal could not possibly be as silly as that which the Government have in mind. It reduces the whole level of debate to come up with this kind of penalty for this kind of offence. I believe I will have the support of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, in that view.
As I said at Second Reading, there is a huge range of arguments. I was not at that time aware that representations were also being made by the RAC Foundation. I must cover myself here because, although I was totally unaware of them, I should also stress that I did not write them. Noble Lords will know that when we are discussing pensions I normally declare an interest as chairman of a pensions fund. By one of the strangest coincidences, that pension fund may well take over responsibility for the RAC Pension Fund. I do not think it can conceivably be thought that I have an interest, but I mention it in case anyone thinks that that is so.
The arguments that they put forward are considerable and back up in some sense the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell; namely, that to take away a driving licence from someone who has not paid their maintenance agreement may well deprive them of the ability to pay the maintenance. That is a strange proposition coming from the Government.
At Second Reading the Minister put forward arguments based on the American experience. As I stressed then, the American experience is vastly
1344
different. I remember when I lived in the United States that one frequently produced a driving licence with a photograph on it for all kinds of purposes, for example cashing cheques. However, in this country I cannot remember when I was asked to produce a driving licence. Indeed, I think most people would have difficulty in managing to find their driving licence. Depriving people of a driving licence will not be an effective bar unless they happen to commit a motoring offence where they are required to produce a driving licence. It may mean that people drive when disqualified and therefore their insurance is not valid; and if they happen to hit someone and kill them, they might not be covered. This is a more serious aspect of the matter.
The Government, having made such a hullabaloo about this matter in the first place, ought seriously to consider whether it is an appropriate penalty. There are a number of other penalties in the Bill. We support the view that it is right to put more emphasis on enforcement and less on an arithmetical calculation of the amount due. We heartily support the Government in that regard and believe that there are cases for tougher penalties on those who fail to take responsibility and pay for their children. However, the introduction of this totally irrelevant penalty will pose a considerable danger. I hope that on reflection, despite the initial spin-doctoring that went on, the Government will think it appropriate to get rid of this proposal and stick to the other more serious penalties that are clearly set out in the Bill.
Baroness Crawley: We should remember why this provision is in the Bill. It is there because only 66 per cent of maintenance due is actually paid at present. Therefore, we have to look at serious ways of ensuring that maintenance due is paid. Although the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, dismissed the American experience, the evidence shows that the very threat of withdrawal led to a vast increase in the amount of maintenance due being paid. In fact, the number of people who had their driving licences withdrawn was very small when compared with the amount of money that came to children as a result of that threat. We return again to the central argument that has featured throughout our discussions this evening; namely, that it is the children who matter. The resources should be going as quickly and speedily as possible to the children. In that case, the threat of withdrawal actually led to some action.
The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, also referred to other possible penalties instead of removing driving licences. I understand that he was thinking of tagging as a possibility. Surely that would criminalise the parent in front of the child. It is a sanction that is over the top as far as concerns damaging the relationship between the parent and the child. I believe that we have much to learn from the American experience. For example, if the noble Lord wants to hire a video next Saturday night, he may, if he is a new hirer in the video store, be asked to produce a driving licence as evidence of his identity.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: He will be in Amsterdam, so there is not much chance of that.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: We really are in danger of going over the top here. My noble friend just mentioned tagging people who do not pay maintenance—
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The proposition that tagging should be considered for non-payment was put forward by Mr Eric Pickles in another place. That would criminalise the matter and make it a criminal offence instead of a civil one. It would mean having someone tagged in front of his children for failing to pay maintenance.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: As I said, we are going over the top. Indeed, it seems that everyone is going over the top, except me. I have to say that I am opposed to this provision on principle. It is completely unacceptable that we should be considering withdrawing driving licences for some of the reasons outlined by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Lord, Lord Higgins. I do not see how this will improve the system.
I simply cannot understand why a government who are supposedly wedded to fairness and individual freedom should introduce such a proposal and such a clause. It is not good enough to say that this works elsewhere. What they do in America is entirely up to them: what we do here must respect our own conditions and our history. Indeed, what might work in America will not necessarily work here.
In my view, the proposal is very unfair. It is also extreme and discriminatory in that it is designed to punish just one section of the population, albeit one that constitutes 50 per cent of the population; namely, men. As we heard this afternoon, the main "culprits", if we can call them that, are men. Therefore, it is discriminatory. I thought that my noble friend the Minister and the Government were against discrimination on sex and other grounds. Moreover, many of those who are reluctant to pay maintenance have, in their view—though not perhaps in ours—very good and valid reasons for withholding payment. Indeed, one of the most common is difficulty of access. Everyone here knows about difficulties of access. That causes acrimony of the worst kind. Parents now, apparently, are to be treated worse than criminals. They are to be treated worse than robbers, muggers, rapists, paedophiles, drug dealers and IRA terrorists—I do not think that there are any proposals to take away their driving licences.
11.45 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I hope that I can help my noble friend. I wonder whether he is aware that in March 1997 the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, introduced a Bill on this matter. There are already pilot schemes in Norfolk and Greater Manchester which allow magistrates to withdraw driving licences for sentences other than those associated with driving.
1346
I hope that in the light of those comment; my noble friend will withdraw his somewhat over the top remarks, if I may say so.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I most certainly will not. Those are pilot schemes and therefore have not been introduced generally. We are including provisions in a Bill as regards people who do not pay maintenance in advance of introducing them for muggers and rapists and other criminals. I should have thought that my noble friend, who I think believes in individual freedom, would not pray in aid a proposal brought forward by the Conservatives in 1997. I was certainly opposed to that at the time. I remain opposed to it at the present time because the punishments are not relative.
Driving licences were introduced as documents to show that persons were fit to drive and could drive safely. They were not introduced as an internal passport, which they now threaten to become. This is the typical tool of control beloved of authoritarian states such as Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. Those remarks may be over the top but that is precisely the kind of thing that happens in such countries. I am ashamed to say that it is now happening here.
My noble fried ought to explain how the clause will protect those whose livelihood is gained from driving. I know that provision is mentioned in the Bill, but is it intended that such people will be exempt from a ban when others are not? Usually there is no exemption from a ban. Will those people be in a different category? This provision introduces a new concept which does not apply to the general withdrawal of driving licences.
What about enforcement? How shall we enforce this measure? God above, the police have enough on their hands at the present time without chasing people who have not paid their maintenance to check whether they are driving without a driving licence! What about the police? Their resources are already stretched to the limit. Furthermore, as has been pointed out, the measure will result in an increase in the number of people driving while disqualified, putting the rest of us at risk, as I believe the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, mentioned.
I find it amazing that the New Labour Party—perhaps we should take the "Labour" out of it—should come forward with a proposal of this kind. The withdrawal of driving licences is bound to be seen as the thin end of the wedge. My noble friend says that pilot schemes already exist. This will pave the way for driving licences to be withdrawn for all kinds of other reasons, not just for criminal offences but for all kinds of other misdemeanours. This could be the thin end of the wedge. People should be loath to introduce this kind of legislation.
The local elections showed a growing alienation from government on the part of many sections of the community. When men realise how they are being singled out for special punishments, there will be further alienation.

1347
This is a nasty, discriminatory, extremist and authoritarian clause. There will be no vote on it tonight, but it will certainly be voted on at Report stage. Even if I am the only one to vote against it, I shall make sure there is a Division. I sincerely hope that at Report stage the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, and others will ensure that there is a vote to get rid of this unnecessary, unwarranted and nasty piece of legislation.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I gather that my noble friend does not approve of this measure.
Let me go back a step. All of the changes to child support that we are proposing are to ensure that maintenance flows to children in a way which is as conducive as possible to mediation, negotiation and good relationships between the parents. That in turn will benefit the children. We want compliance and we are hoping to get compliance. We have a simple formula: men are being asked to pay less; parents with care will be offered a maintenance disregard; if maintenance flows, men will see the money going to their children; we will have the development of a local face-to-face service which can offer interviews in order to sort out problems and so on. We want compliance.
Enforcement, which is what we are now talking about, only kicks in when compliance fails. We want compliance to work and we want to change the culture in order for it to do so.
Lord Higgins: Is it not the case that, if this proposal goes forward, many people who are dependent on being able to drive for their living will find it completely counterproductive. Intrinsically, one is introducing a measure which will reduce people's ability to pay; therefore the possibility of compliance is reduced, not increased
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: On the contrary, the threat of this should help increase compliance. One will lose one's licence only if one fails to pay maintenance. We want people to pay their maintenance. Enforcement kicks in only when people do not voluntarily pay their maintenance. If I may say so, the noble Lord's point is back to front. This possible penalty would kick in only when someone has failed to comply. We are therefore talking about the area of enforcement.
Lord Higgins: Will the noble Baroness give way?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Perhaps I can respond to the noble Lord's point and then perhaps he can intervene. I shall of course give way if he wishes.
One has to ask what remedies are currently available. My noble friend is right, it is mostly men who are non-resident parents; therefore, by definition, it is mostly men who fail to pay maintenance liabilities. Any penalty which insists that men—that is, fathers—pay maintenance, can, on that argument, be regarded as discriminatory. By a definition of the statistics, this
1348
penalty will apply mostly to men. I hope that my noble friend will accept that argument. Whether it is a fine, imprisonment, a restraint order or a garnishee order, all penalties will be levied on those who do not pay their maintenance—and, statistically, they will be mostly men. It is men who are the non-resident parents and it is women, for the most part, who are the caring parents.
I hope that my noble friend will accept that this is not discriminatory, except in so far as most nonresident parents are men and, therefore, any kind of penalty for failure to pay will fall disproportionately on men by virtue of that fact.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Will my noble friend give way?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Of course.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: She is of course correct that the non-resident parents are usually men. Is she aware that one of the reasons for this is that men believe that if they go to court for custody of the children they do not stand a chance; that custody is usually—indeed generally—given to the woman? That is why men generally are the non-resident parents.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: It is too late to engage in that debate tonight.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: No, it is not.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am willing to, but I am not sure that my other noble friends are. To argue that men are unfairly treated by the courts in determining who gets residence is to put to question the whole of the developments in social policies since the Children Act 1989.
I accept that there may be cases where there should be greater contact between them. There are no saints or sinners in this story. I am not saying that all lone parents are perfect and that all non-resident parents are sinners—far from it. Nonetheless, I doubt whether few people would not agree, as the courts themselves agree, that, by and large, the parent with care tends primarily to be the mother. Where that is not the case, there may be good reasons for it. But I suggest to my noble friend that at this stage we do not go into that argument.
I was seeking to address the point that the penalty is discriminatory against men. I was trying to suggest that, on my noble friend's argument, all penalties are discriminatory against men simply because they are the vast majority of non-resident parents and the vast majority of those failing to do what they should. My noble friend's argument seems to follow the line that men have an inalienable right to drive associated with an inalienable right not to support children. I really do not accept that.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: That is not my argument. My argument is that the driving licence is a document which entitles people to drive because they have passed

1349
a test to drive and because they are safe to drive. That is my argument. That licence is being used improperly to enforce other parts of the law. .1 am sure that my argument is correct. It is a pity that my noble friend does not listen to it.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I have listened very carefully to my noble friend. I simply disagree with him. He argues that it is improper. I argue that it is proper. That is simply a juxtaposition of different perspectives.
What we have at the moment is a range of penalties if a non-resident parent fails to pay his maintenance. They include a fine. They include a distraint order. We know that a distraint on goods is effective in less than 10 per cent of cases. They include a garnishee order, which is on the property. It may be 10 or 15 years before that property is sold and the garnishee order comes into effect. They include imprisonment.
We have heard about depriving someone of his livelihood. From the way noble Lords have spoken, one would think that imprisonment is not currently available. If we currently had as an option disqualification as a penalty for men and in addition we were introducing imprisonment for the first time, everything that noble Lords have said about depriving people of their livelihood and so on would be valid. On the contrary, what we are doing is proposing to the Committee that we add another penalty, one which we know from experience abroad—if we have not experienced it ourselves, why should we not turn to experience from abroad?—is more likely to lead to compliance than many of the other penalties.
The problem is making someone pay any money for maintenance. Adding a fine simply adds to the amount of money he is required to pay and does not deliver. Distraint of goods does not deliver. The bailiffs do not get access in other than about 10 per cent of cases. Garnishee orders do not work. With imprisonment, what you are saying to the child is that your father is in prison because he refuses to support his child.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I am sorry to interrupt my noble friend but I really must tell her that when we discussed the original Bill I and others opposed imprisonment. It is inappropriate.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Possibly, but the point is that imprisonment is one of the penalties for contempt of court. If the CSA has taken someone to court for failing to do something, the courts currently have that power to do so. I ask the Committee: which is better for the child; which is better for the parent with care; and which is better for the father—that he should have his driving licence taken away or that he should go to prison? I have no doubt in my mind that all of the arguments advanced about livelihood, children and rural society and all the other flimflarmmery that has been offered to defend men's inalienable right to drive their cars without at the same time supporting their children are based on a notion that somehow imprisonment is not a realistic option.
1350
We are trying to find a way of ensuring that men comply with their obligation to support their children. This measure produces an additional penalty which is available not to the CSA but to magistrates. If magistrates so determine that they wish to pursue the removal of a driving licence rather than imprisonment, that must surely be in the better interests of the man, the better interests of him maintaining his livelihood and the better interests of the child; and, what is more, the moment he starts paying his maintenance his driving licence is restored. Once he is in prison, he does not have that choice; he is there until the end of the sentence for contempt of court. I know which is the more serious of the two penalties. If we ask which it is more decent to do, to threaten to remove a driving licence or to threaten to send someone to prison, I know which sanction is, first, likely to be more effective, secondly, less likely to damage a child, and, thirdly, more likely to ensure that maintenance will be paid, and that is the removal of the driving licence.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: It is fascist.
Midnight
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My noble friend uses the word "fascist". A lot of sanctimonious nonsense has been talked during this debate. I really will not accept this language—"Hitler", "This is fascist", and all the rest. What we are saying is that magistrates will have the option of another sanction in their repertoire which will not be a failure, as fines are—which simply add to the debt which is already causing the problem of payment. It does not end up imprisoning the man and does not try to seize his goods, which in any case is ineffective. My noble friend appears to be saving that he is in favour of all penalties just so long as they are not effective. That is his objection, I suspect—.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon0: I am not saying that at all.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham:—that the provision will be effective, and will therefore bite and will actually make men pay. I am sorry to see that.
Amendment No. 84 would mean that magistrates would have to inquire into whether the non-resident parent needed his licence to buy food, take children to school or attend for medical treatment. We consider that requiring the courts to inquire into whether the non-resident parent needs his driving licence to earn a living, together with an inquiry into his means, is a clear and vigorous provision. The further inquiries suggested by the amendment would place an unreasonable burden on magistrates. It would be difficult to define the circumstances when the suggested provisions might apply. For example, the non-resident parent may have a partner who can drive. Some magistrates may decide that the new partner can take the children to school or buy the food; others may not inquire into the availability of alternatives.
We believe that all parents should accept responsibility for the financial support of the children. Those who refuse to do so, who can pay but are failing to do so, must see that we mean business about

1351
collecting maintenance. It is right that the Child Support Agency should have an adequate range of sanctions that will help achieve this.
Amendment No. 86 seeks to change the rules on availability for work and qualifying for JSA. The effect of the amendment would be to allow the non-resident parent to be exempt from the "actively seeking work" rules for the period of any disqualification.
Exempting a jobseeker who is deprived of a driving licence under this sanction from the "actively seeking work" provision would be at odds with the key purpose of JSA, which is to ensure that recipients maintain a clear labour market focus. There is nothing to prevent jobseekers who are disqualified from driving under this provision either paying their maintenance, whereupon they will have their driving licence restored, or from seeking other types of work not requiring a driving licence. We might expect a jobseeker who is deprived of a driving licence under these provisions because he is failing to pay his maintenance to realign his job goals to take account of the disqualification.
JSA regulations already provide protection for those who live in remote or rural areas. In determining whether a jobseeker satisfies the "actively seeking work" requirement, the regulations state that regard shall be had for all the circumstances of the case, including the location and availability of vacancies.
The clause introduces a new civil penalty, as opposed to a criminal penalty such as imprisonment, that will enable an order to be made by magistrates disqualifying a non-resident parent from holding or obtaining a driving licence. Under the current enforcement arrangements, the CSA would first apply to the magistrates for a liability order. Discretion would then be used as a method of enforcement in individual cases: for example, bailiff action, garnishee orders or ultimately going back to the courts for committal. This new penalty will be added as a final sanction to give magistrates an alternative to committal proceedings.
Lord Higgins: Is the Minister saying that withdrawal of the driving licence is a civil penalty rather than a criminal penalty?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: As I understand it, it is a civil penalty. We are talking about civil penalties. That is one of the virtues of the provision. We are trying not to cross the line between civil and criminal jurisdictions.
These are the procedures that the magistrates' court will have in mind. It is not the CSA but the courts that will decide the matter. The court will have to be satisfied that the non-resident parent has deliberately refused or neglected, through his own fault, to pay the maintenance owed. The courts have to be satisfied on a point which I am sure will concern the noble Lord.
This measure is a serious penalty, intended to be used where the non-resident parent has clearly and persistently failed to meet his responsibility to
1352
maintain a child. I would expect it to be used only when other methods of collecting maintenance, such as a deduction from earnings order or a distress action, has failed. I repeat, we are talking about people who can pay but will not do so and magistrates realise that.
We understand that the loss of a driving licence may have a particularly hard impact on people who live in rural areas. For this reason we have placed a specific duty on the courts to consider whether a licence is needed by a parent to earn his living. But it would fatally undermine the effectiveness of this penalty if it could never be applied where there was a risk of the non-resident parent losing his job as a result. In practice, it would give magistrates no alternative but to imprison those parents to whom the driving licence penalty could not be applied. In other words, if one lived in a rural area one would be more likely to be sent to gaol on the basis of the argument that one could not afford to lose one's driving licence, which would be perverse.
Lord Higgins: Is a magistrates' court a civil court?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: As far as I am aware, it deals with both civil and criminal matters. I am receiving support from elsewhere for the point that I have just made, but if I have misled the noble Lord I am happy to write to him about the nature of the jurisdiction. Parking fines are the subject of civil and not criminal offences. Some of the debts handled by magistrates' courts are not criminal matters. Magistrates deal with other matters as a first step on the road to the criminal jurisdiction; for example, assault, burglary or whatever, which are criminal offences. I do not know whether the noble Lord wishes to pursue this point, but if I can provide any further elucidation I am happy to try to do so.
This measure would be fatally undermined if it could never be applied in rural areas. If that happened the person concerned would, instead, be liable to imprisonment. We would far rather that the person concerned was in work and paid maintenance, but for those few hard cases we must demonstrate that to fail to support your child when you are able to do so is unacceptable. In each case the magistrates, not the CSA, will decide whether the current penalty of committal or the new penalty of removal of driving licence is the more appropriate sanction. If the maintenance arrears have still not been paid at the end of the disqualification period an application may be made to the court either for a further period of disqualification or committal proceedings. That penalty will apply equally to non-resident parents who live in Scotland.
Experience elsewhere shows that the threat of losing the driving licence ensures that money flows. In the past I have cited cases in Minnesota, Texas and elsewhere, but I shall not do so tonight. This measure works. We believe that the possibility of withdrawal of the licence will make non-resident parents thinks twice about trying to evade their responsibilities. Unlike imprisonment and some of the other penalties suggested in another place—for example tagging—this will not bite on the child.

1353
I hope the Committee accepts that what we propose here is an added sanction that is available to magistrates when they determine what to do with someone who repeatedly fails to pay maintenance. We seek to introduce a new penalty, which is of a lesser order than some of the other penalties that are currently available, that may obviate the need for someone to go to prison. We hope that, as shown abroad, the threat of it will ensure that maintenance flows to the child without criminalising the father in so doing. That must be to the advantage of the child and mean that maintenance flows. I hope that as a result noble Lords will withdraw their objections to this proposal.
Earl Russell: Before I say anything else, I shall forgo any advantage which may be derived to my argument from the suggestion that this proposal is discriminatory against men. I am reminded of a rather wise remark by Christina Lamer in a book on witchcraft in which she said that prosecution of witchcraft was only anti-female in the sense in which prosecution of violence was anti-male. That remark set up a revolving door which I entered 15 years ago and from which I have not yet emerged. I am not quite so satisfied by the argument about whether this proposal is discriminatory as between drivers and non-drivers. It seems to me that if two people commit the same offence and one is a driver and the other is not the former will be the more severely punished of the two.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Perhaps I may dispute that. If he does not have a driving licence, the alternative would be for the magistrates to consider committal to prison. So it is not true that the person holding a driving licence would be more disadvantaged than someone who does not.
Earl Russell: That brings me to the point on which the Minister spent a great deal of effort about the argument of comparison between prison and deprivation of driving licence. It is an accepted point that if one breaks the law prison may be the ultimate consequence. But what we are comparing here is a spell in prison with being a second-class citizen living in the world outside. I do not think that that comparison is as easy as the Minister suggests.
I accept, of course, that people who are not safe in charge of a motor vehicle must be deprived of a driving licence for the protection of the public. But to turn individuals into second-class citizens in the course of their ordinary life in the world singles out a group of people in a way which causes me some anxieties. I do not want to reach any firm decisions on the question today, but it is a more complicated argument than the Minister realises.
Very much to my surprise, the noble Baroness stated that people who are deprived of their driving licences may obtain other types of work. I do not know what part of the country she is thinking about. There are some where that is possible; there are a great many where it is not. The noble Baroness talked about the driver getting his licence back. That may be so but by
1354
that time he may well have lost his job. He will have lost the ability, therefore, to pay maintenance, and the ability to comply.
It seems to me, as it does to the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, that the whole proposal is shooting the gander that lays the golden eggs.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I still do not understand what I regard as the back to front nature of the argument. A person is either actively seeking work or in a job. He fails to pay his maintenance. On the example given by the noble Lord, he knows that a driving licence is essential for his continued job. He will say to himself, "I am being asked to pay child maintenance. I do not want to pay child maintenance. If I do not pay child maintenance I may lose my licence and may lose my job." What is the response to that? "I had better pay my child maintenance."
Earl Russell: I was coming to that point which was raised most clearly by the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley. Her argument is simply that this will increase compliance. Perhaps it will but, having lived in the United States, I take the point that the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, makes. One cannot even write a cheque to pay for one's groceries without producing a driving licence in the United States. Therefore I do not think that the situations are comparable.
We have here people subjected to a penalty for not complying with a requirement on which they have never been allowed a hearing. That leaves two possibilities still open. One is the possibility that they cannot pay. I shall give way to the Minister in a moment, but I ask her to consider that she may be mistaken in asserting that there are no people who cannot pay what is assessed. She cannot know that without the individual hearing. Cases are infinitely various. She is beginning to sound very much like the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, saying, "It is not a question of can't pay but a question of won't pay". I do not think that the noble Baroness can know that without a hearing. I give way.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The noble Earl seems to be suggesting that the CSA will take away the driving licence. It is the magistrates' courts which will do so if that is the sanction they propose. It will be they who will hear the case. So this notion that the individual will not be able to put his case to a magistrate and have those circumstances taken into account is simply not true.
Earl Russell: Will the person be able to argue to the magistrate that the CSA's assessment of him is unjust because he cannot pay it?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: No, because the CSA's assessment falls on his income and the number of

1355
children. By definition, it is not that he cannot pay but what priority he puts on that payment over other items of expenditure.
Earl Russell: In fact the Minister concedes my point.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I do not accept the noble Earl's point.
Earl Russell: So I observe. That is precisely the cause of our problems. Let me assume a particular case in which the debt is due to Her Majesty's Government. For many centuries Her Majesty's Government have made a claim that debts due to them take priority over all other debts. You cannot have two first priorities. If the person owes, say, for a back assessment of income tax a sum which he cannot pay without failing to pay his child maintenance, what then is his legal duty? When the Minister can give me a convincing answer to that question I may be a little more prepared to listen.
That is my first possibility and I do not retreat from it. My second possibility is that although the assessment may be perfectly just, the person concerned may be unwilling to accept it because he has not been able to have a hearing and to argue his case. The link in most people's minds between having a hearing and consenting to what is imposed on them is very deep indeed. One of the reasons why the CSA has failed so comprehensively, which is not changed in the Bill, is that that point has not been taken on board.
I take the Minister's point about the ineffectiveness of penalties, but I am not asserting an inalienable right to drive. My favourite remedy for the problem would be improvement in public transport so that driving was not so necessary. The Minister knows that perfectly well. She is saying that because other penalties are ineffective something must be done. That is the most dangerous cry in politics.
Lord Higgins: I am grateful to the noble Earl. Once an argument is put forward that the real effective penalty is removing driving licences, it will not be restricted to issues of child maintenance. Every offence one can think of will involve the removal of the driving licence and that is the real thin end of the wedge.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The proposals were introduced in March 1997 by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, on behalf of the noble Lord's government. Why is he now so bad mouthing proposals introduced in the dying weeks of his last government?
Lord Higgins: The noble Baroness knows perfectly well that I do not bear responsibility for the last government. But perhaps she will tell us what the result of the pilot schemes were and whether any licences were removed.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I cannot tell the Committee about the results of pilot schemes. However, I wanted to ask the noble Lord since when
1356
it has been the usual stance of an Opposition Front Bench only a couple of years after departing government to take no responsibility whatever for the actions of his own government just three years before. I have heard about irresponsibility, but that is to put a new meaning to the word.
Earl Russell: As one who opposed those provisions when they were introduced, and still does, the ability to admit error is something which in politics I prize. I honour the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, for doing it and I am perfectly ready to accept the points that he makes.
Lord Higgins: As the debate is becoming a little disorderly, perhaps I may intervene. The noble Baroness raised the issue of a pilot scheme, of which I was not previously aware. Having done so, I asked whether it was implemented and whether licences were removed and she said that she does not know. That seems a very odd way of proceeding.
Earl Russell: That was the next question I was going to ask. Would the Government consider deferring the introduction of the clause until the pilot schemes are completed and we can observe the results and debate them? That might save the Government a good deal of trouble.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The evaluation report of the pilot scheme, which, given that it was introduced by the previous government, the previous administration might have been interested in following through, was published at the beginning of March. The report shows that its use was not particularly high partly because one of the areas in which it was piloted was Norfolk. There, magistrates tended not to use it and went for fines.
The point I want to make is that they were opting for fines in cases in which the problem was not about failure to pay money and therefore people might have been willing to pay fines. Our problem as regards the CSA is that the obvious remedy, which is to fine someone for failing to do something, simply adds more debt to the outstanding debt.
Lord Higgins: Did the pilot scheme result in anyone losing their driving licence?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Perhaps I may write to the noble Lord. This is a Home Office matter. I gave evidence that the previous administration was quite comfortable to use the removal of driving licences for offences that were not related to driving. That appeared to be news to the noble Lord.
Earl Russell: When I first introduced this amendment very nearly an hour ago, I said that it might take some time. I did not intend it to take quite as long as it has done. I believe that we have gone on long enough. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hollis of Heighammoved Amendment No. 85:
Page 14, line 42, leave out from beginning to end of line 8 on page 15 and insert—
("(6) In this section "the court" means—

(a) in England and Wales, a magistrates' court;

(b) in Scotland, the sheriff.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 86 not moved.]
Baroness Hollis of Heighammoved Amendments Nos. 87 to 90:
Page 16, leave out lines 19 to 26.
Page 16, leave out lines 42 to 44.
Page 17, line 4, leave out ("40A(10)") and insert ("40A(8)").
Page 17, line 4, at end insert—
("( ) In section 164(5) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (power of constables to require production of driving licence etc.), after "Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988" there shall be inserted ", section 40B of the Child Support Act 1991".
( In section 27(3) of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (offence of failing to produce a licence), for t he word "then," there shall be substituted ", or if the holder of the licence does not produce it and its counterpart as required by section 40B of the Child Support Act 1991. then,".").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 17 [Civil imprisonment: Scotland]:
Baroness Millis of Heighammoved Amendment No. 91:
Page 17, leave out lines 9 to 18.
On Question, amendment agreed to. Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.
[Amendment No. 92 not moved.]
Clause 18 [Financial penalties]:
Earl Russellmoved Amendment No. 93:
Page 18, line 45. leave out ("his absolute") and insert ("the reasonable exercise of his").
The noble Earl said: I hope that this will not take long. My purpose is probing in the first instance. I need to see the Minister's answer.
This amendment deals with the provision in Clause 18(2) that a penalty for arrears of child maintenance shall be,
"determined by the Secretary of State in his absolute discretion".
My amendment would alter that to the "reasonable exercise of" his discretion. The real purpose of the probing is to discover exactly what the Minister believes to be the effect of the word "absolute". It is a word with slightly uneasy overtones. However, my specific question is: is it the Minister's intention that the clause should bar the exercise of judicial review? If that is her intention, what does she believe is the likelihood of it being effective?
Before she answers, I hope that she might bear in mind the ruling of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, which I have quoted before, in the case of Fayed v. Home Secretary, that if Parliament wishes to confer a power to act unreasonably it must say so in express words. I do not believe that these are express
1358
words within the noble and learned Lord's meaning. However, that is something on which Ministers might wish to take future advice. Therefore, in the hope of hearing an answer which might reassure me that I do not need to take the matter further, I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Amendment No. 93 relates to the provision which will enable the CSA to impose a discretionary financial penalty of up to 25 per cent of the maintenance owed where payments are unreasonably late or missed altogether. Penalty amounts will be set at the discretion of the Secretary of State and will be used by the agency basically as a tool in negotiations. The aim is to persuade non-resident parents to meet their responsibility to their children in full and on time rather than to impose the penalty.
The amendment alters the wording on the face of the Bill to specify that the use of discretion should be reasonable. This amendment is unnecessary. The penalty will not be imposed automatically. The circumstances which have led to a late or missed payment will be taken into account when considering whether a penalty would be reasonable. The nonresident parent's position is further protected in that he will be able to appeal to an independent tribunal against a decision to impose a penalty and/or the amount of the penalty.
The noble Earl asked also whether it will remove his right to judicial review. My understanding is that it will not.
The Government are determined to ensure that nonresident parents meet their financial responsibilities and, obviously, as we discussed earlier this evening, we shall seek to get tough on those who do not. This simple administrative penalty is to recognise the additional work involved when payments are received late or not made at all. The money will not be kept by the agency; it will go to the Treasury. We believe that it is right that the taxpayer should not have to foot the bill for the extra work that the agency has to do when maintenance has not been paid.
Earl Russell: The Minister does not need o explain the policy intention. I only want to know the effect in the Bill of the word "absolute".
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I do not understand the noble Earl's question because any power must be operated reasonably. Therefore, there is no effect of the word "absolute". When the noble Earl asked me the second question about judicial review, I was able to tell him that that right is not lost.
Earl Russell: If the word "absolute" has no effect, why not withdraw it from the Bill?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Because we believe that it is right to protect the authority of the Secretary or State in that situation.
Earl Russell: How is that authority protected by the insertion of the word "absolute"?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Because, as far as I am aware, that is consistent with the arrangements under

1359
the Social Security Administration Act, which we discussed earlier, as regards how the structures of decision-making, the workings of tribunals and so on are organised.
Earl Russell: Either this confers an arbitrary power or it is an example of the complaint of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, about the prolixity of the statute book. Either way, I am afraid that we must return to this matter. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
1360
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 18 agreed to.
Baroness Amos: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at twenty-seven minutes past midnight.

  European Parliament: Visit to Lisbon Conference by Socialist Members
  European Parliament: Visit to Lisbon Conference by Socialist Members
  EU Legislation
  EU Legislation
  Kosovo: Demining
  Kosovo: Demining
  Montenegro
  Montenegro
  Balkan Stabilisation: Discussions with Russia
  Balkan Stabilisation: Discussions with Russia
  UK-Ukraine Trade
  UK-Ukraine Trade
  International Criminal Court: Ratification of Rome Statute
  International Criminal Court: Ratification of Rome Statute
  Saudi Arabia: Non-Muslim Religious Rights
  Saudi Arabia: Non-Muslim Religious Rights
  EU: Bilateral Relationship with Austria and Other Countries
  EU: Bilateral Relationship with Austria and Other Countries
  European Economic Area: UK Membership
  European Economic Area: UK Membership
  Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations
  Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations
  Passport Agency: Corporate and Business Plans
  Passport Agency: Corporate and Business Plans
  Criminal Records Bureau: Corporate and Business Plans
  Criminal Records Bureau: Corporate and Business Plans
  Firefighters' Conditions of Service
  Firefighters' Conditions of Service
  Treasury Building Refurbishment
  Treasury Building Refurbishment
  United Kingdom Act of Union: Bicentenary
  United Kingdom Act of Union: Bicentenary
  Hotel and Catering Employees: Accommodation Offset
  Hotel and Catering Employees: Accommodation Offset
  Postage Stamp Themes
  Postage Stamp Themes
  New-variant CJD Tonsil and Appendix Surveys
  New-variant CJD Tonsil and Appendix Surveys
  BSE: French Ban on Pithing
  BSE: French Ban on Pithing
  Consultant Merit Awards
  Consultant Merit Awards
  Human Rights Act: Welfare of Children in Care
  Human Rights Act: Welfare of Children in Care
  Milk Banks
  Milk Banks
  Food Origin Labelling
  Food Origin Labelling
  Farm Attractions: Standards of Practice
  Farm Attractions: Standards of Practice
  Zoos Forum
  Zoos Forum
  SEAC: Safety of Gelatin and Tallow
  SEAC: Safety of Gelatin and Tallow
  TSE Researchers Meeting
  TSE Researchers Meeting
  Veterinary Laboratories Agency: Targets
  Veterinary Laboratories Agency: Targets
  Veterinary Medicines Directorate: Targets
  Veterinary Medicines Directorate: Targets
  PLAN
  PLAN
  Pesticide Safety Directorate: Targets
  Pesticide Safety Directorate: Targets
  Farming and Rural Conservation Agency: Targets
  Farming and Rural Conservation Agency: Targets
  Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science: Targets
  Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science: Targets
  Central Science Laboratory: Targets
  Central Science Laboratory: Targets
  Unidroit Convention
  Unidroit Convention
  Welsh Assembly: Draft Protocol on Primary Legislation
  Welsh Assembly: Draft Protocol on Primary Legislation