Sitting of 22 May 2000

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

    Police Manpower
    Mr. Owen Paterson: If he will make a statement on future trends in the number of police officers. [121530]
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): I announced on 17 May that the additional funding in the Budget provided by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will allow us to provide for the recruitment of the 5,000 officers allocated under the crimefighting fund by March 2002, a year ahead of my original plans, which were announced on 9 February. Police forces will be able to recruit 3,000 extra officers this year and 2,000 next year.
    The projections of police numbers based on forces' estimates for recruitment and wastage now rise as follows: it is projected that, in March 2001, the number will be 126,500 and that, in March 2002, it will be 127,000.
    Mr. Paterson: The Home Secretary did not tell us that the previous Government increased police numbers in West Mercia by 405. In only three years, his policies have reduced West Mercia's numbers by 101. The much trumpeted crimefighting fund will still leave West Mercia 12 officers behind in two years' time. When will he wake up to the needs of police in a rural area, get numbers up to those left by the Conservative Government and increase them?
    Mr. Straw: As the hon. Gentleman says, police numbers have fallen in West Mercia. They are due to rise by 89 under the crimefighting fund. I congratulate the West Mercia police force: in the year up to September 1999, there was a reduction in recorded crime throughout West Mercia of 2.4 per cent.
    Gillian Merron: I welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement last week of 41 extra police officers for Lincolnshire, whom we will see in two years,
    656
    not three. What further Government initiatives to support improved policing can we look forward to in Lincolnshire?
    Mr. Straw: In addition to the extra investment in policing in Lincolnshire, which has enjoyed a 4 per cent. increase in support from Government this year, which is above the national average, and the additional investment under the crimefighting fund, there has been investment under the crime reduction programme, which has led to the introduction of closed circuit television and a range of other measures, all of which are designed to assist Lincolnshire police and their excellent record in reducing crime.
    Mr. Gerald Howarth: Is the Home Secretary aware that nothing better illustrates the need for more policemen than the nonsense that is going on in Whitehall? Is he aware that the whole of central London was paralysed on Friday for five hours? It has been paralysed again this morning. Right hon. and hon. Members have found it impossible to get to the House because of a whole load of foreigners who are demonstrating and blocking Whitehall. When I spoke to the inspector, he said that the police were still waiting for enough reinforcements to come to deal with those people. None of us has been able to work because of the noise from the helicopter. If the Home Secretary cannot find us a policeman, perhaps he could introduce some water cannon to deal with the problem, failing which, we still have a few paras left in Aldershot.
    Mr. Straw: As you are aware, Madam Speaker, I am fully seized of the problems that have arisen in Parliament street and in Whitehall. I raised them with the Deputy Commissioner of the police in the absence of the Commissioner at 9 o'clock this morning as soon as I saw what the problem was. I understand that the northbound carriageway of Whitehall has been cleared to vehicular traffic and that the southbound carriageway has either been cleared or is about to be.
    I say two things to the hon. Gentleman. First, in all the public order situations in which I have been involved since becoming Home Secretary, the Commissioner has never raised the issue of police numbers as something that has been holding him back in terms of dealing with those problems. Nor has it been raised this morning. Secondly, as is often the case, the situation has turned out to be more complicated to police. I suggest that water cannon would not have been entirely appropriate—although it is an operational matter for the Commissioner—because women and children were among those demonstrating in the carriageway.
    Mrs. Maria Fyfe: Has my right hon. Friend considered the policing requirements in relation to the Mike Tyson fight? Is he aware that one of the promoters of the fight has a violent criminal past and has connections with Glasgow's criminal underworld?
    Mr. Straw: As far as that is relevant to this question—it is hard to see how it is; it is about policing in England and Wales—may I say that I took advice about the

    657
    possible public order and policing consequences of the latest application in respect of Mr. Tyson, as I did in respect of the one earlier this year.
    Mr. Oliver Heald: Does the Home Secretary agree that recruitment and retention of officers are vital to reversing the trend of declining police numbers? At a time when the police are saying that support and respect for the police are a key factor in recruitment, how can he justify the early release so far of 100 criminals jailed for assault on police under his early release scheme? Is that not a kick in the teeth for hard-pressed police? Does he not remember the era when even the Kray twins would think twice about assaulting a police officer? Is it not time that respect for the police was restored?
    Mr. Straw: I fully support the need for respect to be shown for police in dealing with difficult operational matters. The home detention curfew scheme is a success, and it was backed fully by the unanimous report of the Home Affairs Select Committee, including the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins).
    Mr. Heald: No; not in serious cases.
    Mr. Straw: Yes, it was backed in respect of summary offences, of which assault on police is one. I also do not think that we want to hear from Conservative Members about early releases from prison, given the fact that, in one short week, more than 500 prisoners were inadvertently and mistakenly released by the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) when she was a Minister of State at the Home Office.
    As for respect for the police, the Opposition cannot have it both ways. Their continuous challenging of difficult operational decisions made by the police service in the policing of public demonstrations and in the investigation of difficult murder cases is undermining confidence in the police. It is the Opposition who are doing that.
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: Does my right hon. Friend recall that we were short of police in 1984, but that the Tory Government decided to concentrate use of police in the coalfields during the miners' strike? Does he remember that the result was that burglary and various other offences were committed elsewhere after those police officers had been herded into Yorkshire, Derbyshire, Nottinghamshire, Scotland and Wales?
    As for that demonstration in Whitehall, I have been seriously mistaken. When I spotted all those people, I thought that they were queueing up to see the baby.
    Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend is entirely correct on his first point. All I can say on the baby is that I am sure that all of us wish the Prime Minister and his wife every congratulation. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Those of us who are of a certain age might also wish to add that we are glad that it is him and not us. However, I am sure that we all wish to send the Blair family every congratulation on their fourth addition.
    My hon. Friend's other serious point was very interesting. He is—as ever—correct that, in 1984, under the previous, Conservative Government, there were 4,500 fewer police officers than there are today. Notwithstanding
    658
    that and rising crime, the then Conservative Government decided to abstract thousands and thousands of officers to fight industrial action, rather than to deal with that increasing crime. That—with the flawed introduction of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, and the thoroughly flawed introduction of the Crown Prosecution Service—explains why, although police numbers increased until 1993, crime doubled under the Conservatives. They lost the plot entirely on law and order.

    Spoilt Ballot Papers
    Mr. Nigel Waterson: What proportion of ballot papers have been spoilt (a) under systems of proportional representation and (b) in elections to the House in the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [121531]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): Approximately 0.3 per cent. of the ballot papers that were issued at the 1997 general election were spoiled. Slightly fewer were spoiled in the European parliamentary elections, but marginally more were spoiled in last year's Scottish parliamentary elections. The figure for the elections to the Greater London Authority were higher—largely because a significant number of ballot papers were left blank, but with some people deciding to vote only for the Assembly, and others to vote only for the mayorship.
    Mr. Waterson: Does the Minister accept that there is some disappointment because, despite all the ballyhoo over the London elections, turnout was only 33 per cent, compared with a national average of about 30 per cent? To what does he ascribe that turnout—to people's confusion about the Government's ill-judged attempts to tinker with the British voting system, or to a lack of public interest in the new Labour concept of directly elected mayors?
    Mr. O'Brien: There is no evidence in the actual statistics suggesting that voters are turned off by the electoral system. In relation to proportional representation, the only thing that is certain about the statistics is that there is uncertainty about how to read them. Our view is that a significant number of people decided that they wanted to vote only for the mayorship. They took the view that they would do it in that way and that they would not vote for the GLA, and that, of course, is their democratic right.
    I note in passing that turnout was higher for the Scottish parliamentary elections and the Welsh Assembly elections, for which proportional representation was used, than it was for Britain's council elections, which used first past the post. However, again there is no conclusive evidence on whether people were encouraged or discouraged by the system.

    Asylum Seekers
    Sir Teddy Taylor: If he will make a statement on progress made in dealing with the numbers of asylum seekers. [121533]
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mrs. Barbara Roche): We are committing substantial new resources to speed up all stages of the asylum system. Over 11,000

    659
    initial asylum decisions were taken in March—an all-time record—and the backlog of applications has begun to fall. We are determined to create a system that is genuinely fairer, faster and firmer.
    Sir Teddy Taylor: Is the Minister aware that her recent visit to Southend-on-Sea, when she saw for herself the special problems of seaside towns, was greatly appreciated by officials and, unusually, by councillors of all parties? On the wider front, is she aware of the growing evidence from asylum seekers in Southend and elsewhere that there appears to be a highly organised international criminal group that is offering highly priced places in lorries to potential asylum seekers? Will she consult with the Governments of France and Belgium to see how that appalling activity can best be publicised and tackled?
    Mrs. Roche: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks and for his original invitation to Southend. I was very impressed by the excellent work that has been done by a number of people in Southend, particularly by social services and housing officials. I agree with his point about organised crime. The smuggling of vulnerable human beings is a worldwide trade. Unfortunately, sometimes those involved are in cahoots with some of the unscrupulous immigration advisers whom we are determined to tackle. It is sad that the Conservative Government did not deal with that problem, but we intend to do so.
    Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Minister comment on the cost of holding a large number of asylum seekers in prison, the poverty of asylum-seeking families who are denied access to income support and forced to live on less than 70 per cent. of it and the violent language that is being used by many commentators and others towards asylum seekers, which permeates down and ends up in violent racist attacks on asylum seekers on the streets of this country? Will she call for calm, tolerance and understanding of the reasons why people seek asylum when they are often fleeing from oppression and injustice in their own country?
    Mrs. Roche: I share my hon. Friend's view and that of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who has spoken recently on the issue, that across the decades this country has a proud record of welcoming people. I am pleased that we have had that policy, which this Government will continue. It would be nice to see more press attention given to policies such as those that we have promoted on refugee integration. However, we have to keep a balance. It is also right that we seek to deter those who make unfounded applications. While people are here having their claims processed, we must offer them sanctuary and safety, and maintain and accommodate them. It is in everybody's interests that we speed up the system. We are doing that.
    Miss Ann Widdecombe: Some weeks ago we were entertained by the spectacle of the Home Secretary greeting nine clandestine entrants off the back of a lorry. In a parliamentary answer, he subsequently told me that six of them had claimed asylum,
    660
    but he was not sure where the other three were. Is the Minister able to tell us how many of those six are in the country and where the other three are?
    Mrs. Roche: As far as greeting is concerned, my right hon. Friend was visiting Dover to see the excellent work done by our immigration service in implementing the new civil penalty, which has been a tremendous success in the few weeks that it has been up and running. That throws the opposition of the right hon. Lady and her colleagues into sharp relief. The asylum seekers mentioned are going through the process in the normal way. The difference is that we are speeding up the system so that everybody's claim can be treated fairly. We will give refugee status—quite rightly—to those who have made a genuine claim for asylum. However, we will swiftly return those who have made unfounded claims.
    Miss Widdecombe: So the conclusion is that six are still here and the whereabouts of three are not yet known. How many of the 37 who applied for asylum after the Afghan plane hijacking are still here?
    Mrs. Roche: The right hon. Lady knows that those people are still here because they are going through the appeals process. Is it a new Conservative policy to remove the right to appeal? If so, the House and the British public have a right to know.
    Miss Widdecombe: So they are still here as well. How many applications for asylum have been refused, including on appeal, since the Government came to power? How many of those who have been refused have been removed? How many are still here?
    Mrs. Roche: In the last period for which figures are available, about 7,600 were removed. That is the highest number of people ever removed. To continue that, we will need more detention capacity at the end of this period. It is no good the right hon. Lady chuntering on if she wishes to deny the implementation of the civil penalty.
    Miss Widdecombe: How many?
    Mrs. Roche: I have given the right hon. Lady the figure. The right hon. Lady denies that her Government's record was much worse than ours and left us with a system that needed extra staff and resources. We are delivering; the Conservatives continue to oppose.
    Dr. Norman A. Godman: They may not be genuine asylum seekers, but the Minister knows of my concern over the jailing in Greenock prison—a decision made by immigration officials—of two young Algerian brothers, Hisham and Mohammed Shetto, aged 15 and 17 respectively. They may be young scallywags, but they surely do not deserve such treatment. When will they be transferred to suitable accommodation? It has been put to me that they ought to receive a smidgen of the sympathetic consideration given to Mr. Mike Tyson.
    Mrs. Roche: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who gave me notice that he hoped to catch your eye, Madam

    661
    Speaker, to raise this matter. It is certainly not normal practice to detain young people under the age of 18. However, detention may be appropriate under exceptional circumstances. I will be delighted to go into more detail with my hon. Friend. However, I can say that the ages of the boys are unclear. The brothers were given temporary admission into the care of the local authority, but their extreme behaviour meant that the arrangement could not continue. The Immigration Service is making strenuous efforts to find appropriate care arrangements.

    Security Service
    Dr. Julian Lewis: If he will make a statement on the capability of the Security Service to monitor subversive groups. [121534]
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): The functions of the Security Service are set out in section 1 of the Security Service Act 1989 as amended by the 1996 Act. The Security Service cannot, on its own account, investigate activities, or planned activities, unless they are threats to national security.
    It has been the long-standing policy of successive Governments not to comment on the operations and capabilities of the Security Service. However, I can say that I, as Home Secretary, and the director general of the service are both content that the service is properly resourced to undertake its statutory functions.
    Dr. Lewis: All I can say in response is that they are two people with a minority opinion. Did not the Security Service used to have as its F branch a highly effective organisation for monitoring subversion on the extreme left and the extreme right? Is not it a fact that, both last year and this year, the Home Secretary came to the House bemoaning the fact that demonstrations in the City and Whitehall were impossible properly to take precautions against because of a lack of advance knowledge of what the demonstrators were going to do? Will the Home Secretary now confirm that it was a mistake for his Government to close down F branch of the Security Service as they did, thus enfeebling the ability of the Security Service to take preventive measures, notwithstanding the grudges that he and many of his right hon. and hon. Friends have against F section for its successful monitoring of their activities in the past?
    Mr. Straw: I have to explain to the hon. Gentleman that I bear few grudges and I bear no grudge against whoever it was who thought that their days could best be spent on deciding whether I was subversive. Events showed at the time, as they have since, that that was—generally speaking—a waste of public money. The hon. Gentleman's definition of subversion stretches more widely than that of the director general of the Security Service and that in the Security Service Act 1989. The Act's definition is particular and, as the then Home Secretary—now Lord Hurd—said at the time of its passage,
    There is no power in the Bill to enable the Security Service to take any interest in any person or organisation or any activity or enterprise which presents no threat to the security of the nation as a whole.—[Official Report, 17 January 1989; Vol. 145, c. 218.]
    662
    That has been the template for the service since the Act came into force in 1989. On the other hand, the hon. Gentleman's view is that even the new Labour party is a deeply subversive organisation.
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: Unlike the Home Secretary, I do bear a grudge, and it is against Mrs. Stella Rimington for what she did to the miners in 1984 by abusing the security services. Will the Home Secretary carefully consider the serious allegations contained in this weekend's The Sunday Times in relation to Mrs. Rimington and Mr. Michael Bettaney and, in particular, whether Mr. Bettaney was an alcoholic who had no business operating in the most sensitive areas of the security services? I do not ask for a reply off the top of my right hon. Friend's head, but I would like a considered reply from the Home Office.
    Mr. Straw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the saving clause added to his question, because I cannot give a reply off the top of my head. I will look into the matter. I would also point out that if there is a responsibility for the fact that in any period in our history the activities of the Security Service have ranged more widely than they would do today, that responsibility ultimately lies with those Ministers directly involved—the Home Secretary and Prime Minister of the day—not with those who were public servants.
    Mr. Crispin Blunt: Does the Home Secretary agree that the capability of the Security Service to monitor subversive groups, or perform any other activity successfully, is wholly undermined by the example being set by Dame Stella Rimington in seeking to publish her memoirs? Does he further agree that members of the Security Service should be under a lifetime duty of confidentiality and that Dame Stella's actions set a wholly unwelcome precedent?
    Mr. Straw: I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. Members of the Security Service and other similar agencies are under lifetime obligations that they entered into voluntarily upon their employment. I understand that Dame Stella Rimington's manuscript was submitted by her in draft to the Cabinet Secretary in accordance with the normal procedures and will be dealt with according to those same procedures.

    Hunting with Hounds
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: When he expects to receive the report of the Burns Inquiry; and if he will make a statement. [121535]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): We have always indicated that Lord Burns hopes to submit his report to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary by late spring. My right hon. Friend hopes to publish it shortly thereafter.
    Mr. Prentice: That is splendid news, but what is the Government's general position? Do they still want a ban on hunting with dogs to be piloted through the Commons by means of the private Member's Bill mechanism? If so, would not that risk the measure being torpedoed in the

    663
    House of Lords? Would not it make sense for the Government to bring forward a multi-option Bill, along the lines of the one that became the Sunday Trading Act 1994? That would allow hon. Members of all parties to express a definitive and conclusive opinion on an issue that at present is merely festering?
    Mr. O'Brien: I understand the point that my hon. Friend makes. The Government are, of course, neutral on the issue, which is a matter for a free vote in the House of Commons. The Government took the view that the best way forward was by way of a private Member's Bill, after the Burns inquiry has reported. We have said that we will offer reasonable Government time, if necessary, and drafting assistance for a private Member's Bill, which would be considered by the House on a free vote. I understand that all parties are likely to allow a free vote.
    I am sure that my hon. Friend would be pleased to welcome to his camp the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe). Unlike the rest of the Conservative party, she has always made clear her belief that there should be a ban on fox hunting.
    Mr. John Bercow: Has the Burns inquiry assessed the likelihood of Britons hunting abroad in the event that hunting is banned in this country?
    Mr. O'Brien: What the Burns inquiry assesses must be included in the terms of reference that we have set for it. It is for the inquiry to determine how to interpret the terms of reference.

    Crime Statistics
    Fiona Mactaggart: What progress he has made with preparations for collating statistics about crime, police numbers and achievements in preventing and tackling crime by basic command units. [121536]
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke): We are committed to publishing information that allows local people to judge and compare performance. Recorded crime statistics were published at basic command unit level for the first time in January this year. The next publication will be in July. We are currently preparing an analysis of statistical families of basic command units, which would allow more effective comparison between different parts of the country.
    Fiona Mactaggart: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. However, is he aware that the figures that have been published so far seem to demonstrate that police in the town of Slough work much harder than do police in the rest of the Thames valley? Will he consider making that information more widely available by publishing how many constables are attached to each basic command unit, as well as the number of crimes that have been committed? That would show where the police have to work hardest, and it might persuade our chief constable that he should allocate more constables to Slough.
    Mr. Clarke: The question of the work rates of officers in different parts of the Thames Valley police force is a matter not for me but for the chief constable. We are prepared to consider publishing more data about what is happening at basic command unit level. That data would
    664
    include the number of officers allocated to each unit. The inspectorate of constabulary intends to carry out a rolling range of inspections at basic command unit level from April 2001, which will allow a detailed analysis of the sort of matter that my hon. Friend has raised.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: Figures from the Home Office research department and the British crime survey show that, out of every 100 crimes committed, 47 are reported and 27 are recorded. However, only five crimes are cleared up, and only three result in a caution or conviction.
    Does the Minister agree that the priorities are to prevent crime and to detect it? To avoid an increasingly ridiculous British auction of ever-more draconian sentences being imposed—an approach that has not been effective in the past—will he convene a meeting with his counterparts in the other two main parties to examine what works to deter crime? Will he undertake to ensure that every community, rural and urban, can at least have officers on the ground? That would reassure those communities, and make sure that someone is in the front line, preventing and detecting crime.
    Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman asks a compendium question. I certainly agree that we are focusing on reducing and detecting crime by all means possible. The whole thrust of our policy is, as the hon. Gentleman says, on what works, identifying the best technique and driving it forward. That is why we established the best value regime for the police earlier this year. I wish that politicians of all parties would share that aspiration and stop trying to undermine confidence in the police, as some of our opponents frequently do in what they say. I confirm that our approach is to see what works and to drive crime down.
    Mr. Robin Corbett: There is a wide welcome in my constituency for the provision of such information at basic or operational command unit level. Does the Minister agree that it makes it far easier for members of the public to understand what the police are doing—their success and the challenges that they face—if these partnerships are built from the bottom up rather than from headquarters down?
    Mr. Clarke: I completely agree with my hon. Friend. The purpose of what we intend to do is to raise public debate and have much more positive discussion about strategies and ways in which people can work together. An important part of publishing the data at BCU level is also to align the boundaries of basic command units and local authorities and therefore crime reduction partnerships. That allows us to establish the best ways of reducing crime in different parts of the country.
    Mr. David Lidington: But surely the Government's statistics demonstrate that after five years in which recorded crime consistently fell, we are now seeing a disturbing upward trend in recorded crime in England and Wales. What is the Minister's explanation for this renewed surge in crime?
    Mr. Clarke: The statistics actually demonstrate strikingly different levels of crime reduction performance in various basic command units. That is the single most

    665
    striking factor. It is true for police authorities generally but, more important, it is true at basic command unit level. Basic command units which might be thought to be broadly similar in character are in fact demonstrating dramatically different levels of performance in bringing crime down. That is why we introduced the best value regime and why we are publishing the data—to get a much more effective and accurate fix on what really will bring crime down, which is the whole focus of what we are trying to do.

    Community Police Officers
    Mr. Hilary Benn: If he will make a statement on the role of community police officers. [121537]
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke): The community beat officer is a vital link between the police service as a whole and the community policed by that particular officer. A dedicated, proactive community beat officer plays an important role in fighting crime, whether by identifying and tackling local crime problems, providing intelligence, or combating fear of crime. An inspection currently being carried out by Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary, entitled "Winning the Race 3", pays special attention to individual forces' use of community beat officers as a key factor in service delivery.
    Mr. Benn: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his reply, and in particular his comments about the valuable contribution made by community beat officers to visible local policing. When does he expect all police forces to have in place a policy covering the limited circumstances in which such officers can be taken off their beat duties, so that they can spend as much time as possible doing the job which they are employed to do?
    Mr. Clarke: One of the aspirations of the inspectorate of constabulary's report, "Winning the Race 3", is to increase the number of forces that have policies of the kind referred to by my hon. Friend. Over the past 10 months or so, the number of forces that have policies in place has nearly doubled, and they continue to proceed. We do not have a specific timetable for all forces, but we have the aspiration of ensuring that that happens as quickly as possible.
    Mr. John Wilkinson: Is the Minister aware that, notwithstanding the very welcome visit of the noble Lord Bassam of Brighton to the Hillingdon borough, hosted by my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) and the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell), and our joint visit, as a threesome, to see the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis about policing matters, especially community policing, I have been informed that our borough is to have not a single extra uniformed policeman to put on the beat or anywhere else? Is it not the case that Her Majesty's Government are seriously misleading the public, certainly as far as outer London is concerned, with their bland assertions that more manpower will be available, when clearly it will not?
    Mr. Clarke: I remind the hon. Gentleman that under his Government, the number of Metropolitan police officers fell by 2,000. The subject of policing in outer London has been widely debated, not only by the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends but by others. It is an operational matter for the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis to decide what the allocation of his resources is. I know that he is committed to very effective policing in outer London, including the area that the hon. Gentleman represents, and I am sure that he said that to the hon. Gentleman when he met him.
    Ms Glenda Jackson: The invaluable contribution that has been made to my constituency by community police officers is immensely valued by my constituents, not least in reducing the incidence of drug abuse, racial harassment and, more particularly, domestic violence. Therefore, my hon. Friend will be aware, as I am sure are all hon. Members, of the stupefaction felt by many of my constituents at the decision of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to allow into the country for the second time a proven abuser of women. Can my hon. Friend be sure that he will issue direct and reinforcing guidance to all community police officers that, despite my right hon. Friend's decision, violence against women is not endorsed by the Government?
    Mr. Clarke: I can confirm that domestic violence, and particularly violence against women, is a significant target of the Government's policy. We have established many support programmes, which have been focused on reducing domestic violence, securing a better level of reporting of it and getting a much better level of co-operation between the police and social workers, for example, to fight domestic violence.
    The particular decision to which my hon. Friend referred is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and is not related specifically to the role of community police officers.
    Mr. David Heath: I welcome what the Minister said about community policing, but does he agree that for many chief constables community policing and, indeed, the entire patrol function is a marginal activity when resources are scarce, and tends to be lost? If he is to produce figures relating to basic command units, as described in response to the previous question, would it not be important to ensure that resources follow need in basic command units, particularly in rural areas, and especially those rural areas that come under a force that covers urban areas as well? Will they get the additional support that they need for rural policing?
    Mr. Clarke: I do not think that any chief constable thinks that community policing is a marginal activity, to use the hon. Gentleman's term. I have visited many forces and I have discussed this very matter with the senior police officers responsible. They are committed to establishing regimes of community policing that really will make a difference. As the hon. Gentleman says, publishing data at BCU level will enable us to have a much more informed debate about these matters in future, which will be in the interests of all concerned.

    Burglaries (Greater Manchester)
    Ms Hazel Blears: What targets for burglary reduction he has set for Greater Manchester police. [121538]
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Paul Boateng): Local crime reduction targets for police forces are set by local police authorities. Greater Manchester police authority has set a target of achieving a 25 per cent. reduction in domestic burglary by April 2005.
    Ms Blears: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. I am delighted that Salford has recently received nearly £1 million to tackle burglary in the city and to help meet the 25 per cent. reduction target. However, we have serious criminals who launder money. I am particularly pleased by the announcement of plans to seize the assets of criminals.
    Does my right hon. Friend recall that the criminal career of Al Capone was brought to an end by convictions for tax evasion rather than murder? Will he, like Eliot Ness, pursue serious criminals in equally innovative ways in future?
    Mr. Boateng: I am not so sure that Eliot Ness and the Untouchables are the immediate analogies that spring to mind, but the answer is yes.

    Special Constables
    Mr. Andrew Stunell: What measures he plans to encourage recruitment of additional special constables. [121539]
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): The Government continue to support the efforts of the police to recruit more special constables. The Home Office has produced a recruitment video, a series of posters, and a recruitment brochure, and funded a two-week national radio and press campaign in March 2000, at a cost of £700,000. Research into why people join the special constabulary has been commissioned. The results of the research and the March campaign will be available shortly, will be made known to the House and will help focus plans for the next recruitment campaign.
    Specials now meet higher recruitment standards and are better trained and equipped; and offer a much better support to their regular colleagues and, therefore, a better service to the public.
    Mr. Stunell: I was pleased to hear the Home Secretary refer to a radio recruitment programme. Is he aware that in Stockport, which is part of Greater Manchester, special constables had to have their radios provided by funds from the local council because the Greater Manchester police force was not able to fund them? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is a lack of status and a lack of funding, which make the job somewhat unattractive for those who really could play a constructive part in policing our community?
    Mr. Straw: The way in which specials are used varies considerably from one force area to another. Some forces, and their regular officers, embrace the specials and use
    668
    them effectively. In other forces, there remains an implication that they are unpaid labour, and the regular officers are slightly stand-offish. In truth, these members of the community give of their time freely and voluntarily to supplement the work of regular officers, which they do extremely well. We have sought to raise recruitment and training standards for those officers so that they can be relied on more readily than may sometimes have been the case in the past. We have taken steps to improve their expenses and sick pay, and—which is important—to provide them with insurance in case of legal action against them.
    Mr. David Winnick: As the role of special constables is obviously to fight criminality, what message do they receive if a convicted rapist such as Tyson is allowed into the United Kingdom? Is my right hon. Friend aware that men, as well as women, are deeply opposed to letting him in? I hope that my right hon. Friend will understand the feelings on his Back Benches and reconsider his decision.
    Mr. Straw: It is hard to see quite how that question arises on this matter, but it is my responsibility to take such decisions on the basis of the rules and the law as they exist. The simple fact is that that particular immigration rule had been observed more in the breach than in the observance. No proper arrangements had been made for requiring such information from those who were not visa nationals and who were arriving in this country. As it turned out, other people with more serious convictions had come and gone without notice. Above all, I had to take account of whether Mr. Tyson's entry would pose a risk to the safety of the public. On the basis of the history of his application—
    Mr. Winnick: That is not the issue.
    Mr. Straw: With great respect to my hon. Friend, on the basis of the history of the application and the need for fairness and consistency, I took the decision that I took. I also laid before the House a consultative document, on which my hon. Friend may wish to comment, proposing changes in the rules and their more consistent application in future.
    Mr. Edward Garnier: The Home Secretary will recognise that special constables are prime examples of the citizen in uniform. They perform many of the community policing roles that we would wish regular officers to play. What has the Home Secretary to say to the police about housing costs, which are one of the reasons why it is so difficult to encourage police officers to live in the more expensive parts of the country?
    Mr. Straw: I have two things to say about housing costs. First, as the hon. and learned Gentleman will recognise, following the abolition of the housing allowance in 1994, under the Sheehy changes, some forces, particularly the Metropolitan police, have, because of rising prices, found it increasingly difficult to recruit and retain officers. Secondly, in recognition of the particular problems faced in the Metropolitan police service, I have authorised the offer of a substantial increase in the London allowance for post-1994

    669
    Metropolitan police officers. The offer is currently in arbitration, but I hope that there will be a satisfactory outcome as soon as possible.
    Ms Claire Ward: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the pay increase in the Metropolitan police to which he has just referred is causing severe problems for Hertfordshire police and other constabularies around London? It is making it more difficult for other forces to recruit and retain officers, not only as special constables but as regulars. What plans has he to assist those constabularies to retain officers as well as recruiting them?
    Mr. Straw: A working group in the Police Negotiating Board is considering the matter. I am aware of representations made to me personally by the chief constable of Hertfordshire and two other chief constables in the home counties. I have to say that the quicker they produce firm evidence about their recruiting problems, the quicker and better able we shall be to respond.

    Child Curfew Orders
    Mr. Desmond Swayne: How many child curfew orders have been (a) applied for and (b) granted. [121540]
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Paul Boateng): No applications have been received from local authorities to establish child curfew schemes. The failure of some local authorities to recognise the importance of ensuring that they use the full range of powers that are now available to them to counter anti-social behaviour is a matter of continuing concern.
    Mr. Swayne: What is a matter of concern is that the arrangements are entirely unworkable. What is the Minister going to do to make them operable?
    Mr. Boateng: The hon. Gentleman is misguided. If he consults his own crime and disorder partnership, he will find that it makes good use of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. Indeed, I have a copy of the partnership document; it indicates that a group has been established, led by the chief officer of police and the chief executive of the district council, to look at anti-social behaviour orders—which must be seen alongside the child curfew orders. That group is making considerable progress. The hon. Gentleman should be supporting his local partnerships, rather than knocking the Act that set them up.
    Mr. Frank Roy: My right hon. Friend will be aware that child curfew orders have been used, as a last resort, on housing schemes in the west of Scotland. Does he agree that the use of role models is also important for children? If so, what would he tell children on the west of Scotland housing schemes whom I represent about looking to a rapist and a person who bites off someone else's ear during a boxing match as a role model. What would he tell children who think of Mike Tyson as a role model?
    Mr. Boateng: I should tell them that a large range of role models is available and that they do not have to turn to Mike Tyson or anyone like him in order to find one.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: The Minister referred to anti-social behaviour orders. Will he tell the House how many have been issued? Why does he think that the partnerships to which he referred actually work—rather than responsibility being taken by the police?
    Mr. Boateng: Forty—and half of them were issued specifically in relation to juveniles. If the hon. Lady talks to her own local partnership, she will find that as valuable as the order itself is the fact that the Crime and Disorder Act has enabled local agencies—education, social services, health, probation and the police—to work together to tackle those problems, thus making it unnecessary in many cases to apply for an order. The important point is that the power exists; it is being used, and it is working.

    Anti-drugs Policies (Netherlands)
    Mr. Paul Flynn: What plans he has to visit the Netherlands to investigate anti-drugs policies. [121541]
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke): None—although, recently, I was there for three days on holiday.
    Mr. Flynn: How does the Minister respond to the conclusions of the Police Foundation that, after 20 years of decriminalisation in the Netherlands, cannabis use is far less than it is in Britain, and that that country has the lowest ratio of drug deaths in Europe? After 30 years of prohibition in this country, heroin use has increased by 2,000 per cent., and cannabis use is the highest in Europe. Has not the Police Foundation demolished the main plank of the Government's policy by also concluding that young people in Holland are far less likely to experiment with heroin than those elsewhere in Europe?
    Apart from making jokes on the subject, will my hon. Friend fulfil his important duty as a Minister, to reduce drug deaths by examining fairly all the evidence, including the success of the Netherlands?
    Mr. Clarke: I do not make jokes about the subject. Drug taking among young people is one of the most serious and tragic matters with which we have to deal. It is incumbent on Governments to try by all means possible to drive down drug taking by young people. For that reason, I did not accept the conclusions of the Police Foundation report.
    It is not clear that the Dutch policy has been a success. The Dutch Government have reduced both the overall numbers of coffee shops and the amount of cannabis that can be bought with impunity in any one transaction. I understand that they will be reviewing the policy again this year. The semi-legal trade in cannabis in the Netherlands has also helped to make that country a safer place for big-time crooks. That is why there are substantial problems in that regard.

    671
    In addition, it is incumbent on us all to appreciate that there are significant contradictions between the coffee shop policy in the Netherlands and international agreements. The single convention on narcotic drugs 1961 states that effective measures against abuse of narcotic drugs require co-ordinated and universal action; the convention calls for international co-operation aimed at common objectives. That is our policy. It is not a joking matter at all; the Government are doing all that we can to drive down drug taking.

    Asylum Seekers
    Mr. Mike Gapes: If he will make a statement on the dispersal programme for asylum seekers. [121542]
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mrs. Barbara Roche): We began to phase in the new support arrangements for destitute asylum seekers on 3 April 2000 for those who applied for asylum at port, and in-country in Scotland and Northern Ireland.
    On 17 April, we extended the new arrangements to those applying while in Kent, and to applicants who have had their first refusal of asylum while living in Kent and are appealing against that decision. We hope to bring all other new applicants on to the new arrangements within six months.
    Mr. Gapes: I am grateful for that reply, and my hon. Friend will know that I was one of the hon. Members who supported the idea of a dispersal policy because it would take pressure off the London boroughs. However, will she assure me that the policy will be properly funded, that the centres will be properly established and that problems will not lead to people leaving those areas, returning to London and becoming destitute because there are inadequate support mechanisms in those localities? Will she also assure me that the Government will not adopt the policy of the Conservative party of locking up all asylum seekers and stopping people living with their relatives in this country if they have them?
    Mrs. Roche: I understand my hon. Friend's concerns. As another London Member, I know very well the situation in London. That is why we made the arrangements for dispersal, and I reassure my hon. Friend that we are making arrangements outside London. As he will know, we are grant-funding some refugee organisations to provide support services, to assist with a variety of matters and to help local authorities and other service providers. So far, the arrangements have gone very well and I am grateful to all the people who have supported them.
    Dr. Evan Harris: The Minister will know that we have corresponded over the possible use of a former old people's home in my constituency to house asylum seekers on a temporary basis until the site is sold for redevelopment. Its use is being considered because of the extremely high cost of bed-and-breakfast accommodation at a time when the accommodation situation is tight. Will the hon. Lady join me in condemning the activities of Conservatives locally, who have claimed that the proposal is to build a detention centre at Oseney Court on the Botley road, and will she
    672
    also condemn the conduct of a local councillor who talks of strangers kicking elderly people out of their accommodation?
    Mrs. Roche: I understand completely the points that the hon. Gentleman makes. They illustrate again the complete nonsense of the Conservatives' policy. I was very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the contact that we have had on this issue and it is apparent that Members of Parliament on both sides of the House take such cases very seriously, particularly as they affect their constituencies. I am willing to discuss cases on an individual basis with hon. Members and I hope that the attitudes that they have taken will continue to prevail.

    Electoral Procedures Experiment
    Maria Eagle: What reports he has received about the response of the electorate to the experimental voting arrangements tried out in the May local elections. [121543]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): Under the terms of the Representation of the People Act 2000, local authorities have three months in which to carry out a formal evaluation of their recent electoral pilot schemes. The evaluation reports are likely to include an assessment of the electorate's attitude towards the schemes.
    Maria Eagle: Given that only the postal balloting experiment appears to have led to an appreciable increase in turnout, and that turnout at the recent local elections fell generally, will my hon. Friend consider extending the provisions of full postal balloting to all local council elections?
    Mr. O'Brien: There is certainly a strong case, on its merits, for all-postal ballots in council elections. However, the way in which the evaluation reports will have to be examined and the consideration that we shall have to give to the administration of the pilot schemes means that we are not able, as yet, to make a decision about such ballots. We hope that many local authorities will apply to run pilot schemes in future elections.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: The Minister will know that an unusually high number of ballot papers were spoilt in the recent elections for the mayor and assembly of London. Earlier, the Minister seemed to imply that ballot papers were spoilt because many electors voted only for the mayor, not the assembly. As those ballots were completely separate, is the Minister prepared to publish a paper saying how the ballot papers were spoilt so that Londoners may be better informed on this important and worrying issue?
    Mr. O'Brien: In the mayoral election, 38,141 ballot papers were spoilt, equivalent to 2.18 per cent. of those issued. In the Greater London Authority constituency elections, 88,142 ballots were spoilt, or 5.04 per cent. In the GLA top-up, 161,972 ballots were spoilt, equivalent to 9.27 per cent. I trust that that deals with the hon. Gentleman's question.

Steel Industry
3.31 pm
Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 24, to debate an important, urgent and specific matter, namely
the major announcement by Corus, formerly British Steel, to make 168 redundancies and reduce shift operations in my constituency.
The Workington plant is one of the world's principal railway line production plants. Last year, Corus controversially acquired its French competitor Sogerail, which it is now trying to maintain close to full capacity. The matter is important because the announcement is disastrous for the future of west Cumbria. Jobs are now at stake, not only in steel but more widely in support services and allied industries. Workington already has some of the highest levels of unemployment in the region, and we cannot afford for the steel industry to be run down.
The matter requires urgent debate because, at this very moment, Corns is considering further investment decisions both within and outside the euro area, especially in France, which totally undermine the viability of its west Cumbrian operations. Furthermore, decisions taken in Brussels to reduce percentage levels of regional assistance to west Cumbria on the basis that it has a healthy steel industry are no longer valid and need to be reconsidered.
The voice of the UK Parliament needs to be heard. The matter is specific to the national debate on Britain's export performance as, historically, the Workington plant has exported 70 per cent. of its production worldwide, as well as supplying almost the entire UK requirement for railway lines. The decision exposes the unpalatable truth that, thanks to Corns and its management, Britain will change from being the world's leading exporter of railtrack products to being one of its largest importers. The implications for the balance of payments are unacceptable and draconian. May we have a debate, Madam Speaker, if not today, certainly in the near future?
Madam Speaker: I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman. As he knows, I must give a decision without stating my reasons for it. I am afraid that I do not consider that the matter that he raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 24. Therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

Points of Order
3.33 pm
Mr. Edward Leigh: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I refer you to Question 9 on additional special constables, which was asked by the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell)? The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) used his supplementary question as an opportunity to ask a question about Mike Tyson. He is perfectly entitled to try his luck and I do not blame him for that. Indeed, we all try to do that occasionally. The Home Secretary gave a long reply on what I accept is a matter of public interest. However, the Home Secretary and the hon. Member for Walsall, North made no attempt to relate the matter to special constables. Has a precedent been set? Can we use any question on the Order Paper as an opportunity to ask about a matter of public interest, just because a Minister is taking a decision on that matter?
Madam Speaker: I believe that the supplementary question was in order on this occasion because the question on the Order Paper refers to "additional special constables". The Home Secretary was asked whether additional special constables were needed to police what was about to take place. As the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) knows, I try to be very careful not to allow hon. Members on either side of the House to raise issues and questions that do not relate directly to the Order Paper. I am most concerned about that and ask hon. Members to help me in that, as the hon. Gentleman has done today. I shall continue to watch the matter in the future.
Mr. Richard Burden: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek your guidance on the implications for procedure in the House of a report in The Guardian today. It is reported that the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) wrote a letter on 14 May 1998 to a noble Lord, setting out his tactics for blocking a number of private Members' Bills. In that letter, he stated that the Government should not get the Fireworks Bill
as punishment for letting their backbenchers play around with hunting.
Does the right hon. Gentleman put chasing foxes before the welfare of children and animals?
In terms of procedure, is it right for a Member to seek to persuade the Government to prevent hon. Members from exercising their right to introduce private Members' legislation in the House?
Madam Speaker: I appreciate the fact that the hon. Gentleman gave me notice of his point of order, but he will understand that I can respond to it only in so far as it concerns the Chair. The proceedings on the Fireworks Bill in the 1997–98 Session were entirely in order. There is nothing in the press report that requires a ruling from me.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will recall that on 17 November last year—[Laughter.] We know that you have a wonderful

675
memory. On 17 November last year, the opening sitting of this Session, we passed a Sessional Order stating:
That the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis do take care that during the Session of Parliament the passages through the streets leading to this House be kept free and open and that no obstruction be permitted to hinder the passage of Members to and from this House and that no disorder be allowed in Westminster Hall, or in the passages leading to this House during the Sitting of Parliament, and that there be no annoyance therein or thereabouts; and that the Serjeant at Arms attending this House do communicate this Order to the Commissioner aforesaid.
You will have heard that the Home Secretary had a meeting with the Commissioner this morning, but the motion that we passed last year has been flouted.
What discussions have you had with the Serjeant at Arms so that he might imbue the police with a little more verve to get on with clearing the streets, not only so that right hon. and hon. Members may have access to the House, but so that those going about their business in the metropolis may not be disrupted?
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Three times this morning I passed the demonstration in Whitehall. Members of Parliament have access by various means from parliamentary buildings on to the embankment and into the House of Commons. The behaviour of the Metropolitan police on this occasion has been exemplary—they have dealt with a difficult situation in which large numbers of women and children have been sitting along Whitehall. I should not like our sessional use to be in some way a criticism of the Metropolitan police.
Madam Speaker: The House will have heard the Secretary of State answer a supplementary question today relating to the matter. I regret it if some hon. Members were delayed in reaching the House today, as I regret inconvenience that has been caused to the public. I went out at 12.45 pm today to look at the situation, and I found some hon. Members coming in, including the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), walking along as if nothing had happened. She told me that she had no problems getting through, but I expect that of the hon. Lady.
As the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) says, the matter is serious and a Sessional Order requires the Commissioner to disperse all assemblies and proceedings that cause obstruction or disorder within the area covered by the order on any day when Parliament is sitting. Of course I recall that. We go through those orders when Parliament is opened and we take them seriously, as I do.
I discussed this morning's events with the Home Secretary, who was kind enough to telephone me to give me his view. I do not disclose what is said by the right hon. Gentleman or other Ministers, but I had confidence in what he said. The Home Secretary and I agreed that
676
there was a clear breach of the Sessional Order. I know what action he took as soon as he was aware that there was some disturbance. I have been given an assurance by the Home Secretary that there will be a full investigation to try to ensure that there is no recurrence.
The hon. Member for Aldershot mentioned the Serjeant at Arms. I know that he has been doing his best all morning to deal with the problem on behalf of hon. Members.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In view of obvious public anxiety and the seriousness of the situation between Eritrea and Ethiopia, have you received any requests from the Foreign Office to make a statement about its efforts to invoke a United Nations-sponsored ceasefire and peace conference to settle an appalling conflict between two very poor countries where many innocent lives are being lost for no purpose?
Madam Speaker: No, I have received no indication that the Foreign Secretary wishes to make a statement on that.
Mr. John Bercow: Further to an earlier point of order, Madam Speaker. I am sure that the House is grateful for your ruling on Question 9. However, I seek your guidance on a general issue. If it transpired from the Official Report that an hon. Member had referred neither to the wording nor the meaning of the question on the Order Paper, should other hon. Members deduce that such a precedent should not be imitated?
Madam Speaker: If an hon. Member put a supplementary question that did not relate to the substantive question, I hope that I would stop him midway. I try to do that on such occasions. Earlier, I explained why I allowed the supplementary on Question 9. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to pursue the matter further, he can do that through an early-day motion.
Mr. Michael Fabricant: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. At noon today, an announcement was expected about the future of the millennium dome. At 2.30 pm, no announcement had been made. As you know, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport chairs the Millennium Commission. Has he approached you to say that he will come to the House to announce whether the dome will be sold early, or to explain the future of the dome, which was the shining light of new Labour?
Madam Speaker: I am sorry to have to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, but I do not believe that the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport is seeking to make a statement on that issue today.

Nuclear Safeguards Bill [Lords] and Sea Fishing Grants (Charges) Bill (Allocation of Time)
3.42 pm
The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): I beg to move,
That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Nuclear Safeguards Bill [Lords] and the Sea Fishing Grants (Charges) Bill—

Nuclear Safeguards Bill [Lords] and Sea Fishing Grants (Charges) Bill (Allocation of Time)

  Timetable
  1.—(1) Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading of the Nuclear Safeguards Bill [Lords] shall be completed at today's sitting and brought to a conclusion (if not previously concluded) four hours after the commencement of proceedings on this Motion.
  (2) Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading of the Sea Fishing Grants (Charges) Bill shall be completed at today's sitting and brought to a conclusion (if not previously concluded) five hours after the commencement of proceedings on this Motion.

  Questions to be put
  2.—(1) This paragraph applies for the purpose of bringing proceedings on either Bill to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1.
  (2) The Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

  (a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;

  (b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;

  (c) the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown;

  (d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded.

  (3) On a Motion made for a new Clause or Schedule, the Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.
  (4) If two or more Questions would otherwise fall to be put under sub-paragraph (2)(c) on amendments moved or Motions made by a Minister of the Crown, the Speaker shall instead put a single Question in relation to those amendments or Motions.

  Miscellaneous
  3. Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply at today's sitting to proceedings to which this Order applies.
  4. Proceedings to which this Order applies shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
  5. No Motion shall be made to alter the order in which proceedings on either Bill are taken or to recommit either Bill.
  6. No dilatory Motion shall be made in relation to either Bill except by a Minister of the Crown; and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
  7. If at today's sitting—

  (a) a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 24 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) has been stood over to Seven o'clock; but

  (b) proceedings to which this Order applies have begun before then,

  proceedings on that Motion shall stand postponed until the conclusion of those proceedings.
  8. Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply to either Bill.

  Supplemental Orders
  9. The proceedings on any motion made by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order
  678
  shall (if not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced; and Standing Order No. 15(1) shall apply to those proceedings.
  10. If at today's sitting the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the time at which any proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion under this Order, no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.
  I shall speak briefly because the House has important business to consider this afternoon. The motion would allow for up to five hours of debate on the timetable and both Bills. I hope that it will not be necessary to spend three hours debating the motion, and that we can move on swiftly to debate the substance of the Bills.
  There can be no doubt about the value of both measures. Of course, some hon. Members want to probe and discuss various aspects of the Bills. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said last Thursday, the Committee stages of the Bills—and, indeed, two other Bills that the House will consider later today—passed swiftly.
  The Nuclear Safeguards Bill took one hour 48 minutes in Committee. Today, 33 amendments, four new clauses and one new schedule have been tabled. None of those amendments raises anything new, and the Government oppose them all.
  The Sea Fishing Grants (Charges) Bill took one hour 13 minutes in Committee. The Government accepted no amendments, and no Government amendments have been tabled today.
  Mr. John Bercow: Unless I misheard the Parliamentary Secretary, he suggested that the Nuclear Safeguards Bill absorbed one hour 48 minutes. Will he confirm that it in fact absorbed only one hour 12 minutes?
  Mr. Tipping: I cannot confirm that, but I shall look at the matter. I understand that the Nuclear Safeguards Bill took one hour and 48 minutes and the Sea Fishing Grants (Charges) Bill one hour and 13 minutes. The three new clauses and two amendments, which have been tabled by an Opposition Member, would add nothing to the Sea Fishing Grants (Charges) Bill.
  Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way a second time with his characteristic courtesy. Unless I am much mistaken, or there has been a misprint, the Standing Committee sitting began at 10.30 am on 18 April and consideration concluded at 18 minutes to 12. Even by new Labour calculations, that amounts not to one hour and 48 minutes, but to one hour and 12 minutes. That is germane to our consideration of the timetable motion.
  Mr. Tipping: Clearly, if the Official Report is correct—I am sure that it is—the hon. Gentleman is better at his sums than other people. I apologise to him and the House.
  There are important matters that the House needs to debate this afternoon. It is regrettable that a few Opposition Members seem to be less interested in the genuine scrutiny of legislation and more interested in disrupting the progress of business, regardless of the desirability of the legislation that they want to delay. Such behaviour may not be in the interests of the whole House and the industries concerned, nor in the public interest. However, it is for those Members to justify their actions.

  679
  I do not complain, nor should they complain of the Government's desire to pass legislation. I hope that the House will approve the motion quickly.
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Can my hon. Friend the Minister tell me where, in the Government's view, the dividing line on applying timetable motions falls? Is it where Her Majesty's Opposition are being an irritant and, therefore, have to be taught a salutary lesson or where the legislation is of such major importance that it should be dealt with in an exemplary manner, without the Opposition having recourse to what are legitimate means of opposition?
  Mr. Tipping: I remind my hon. Friend of what I have just said—I do not complain and those are legitimate tactics; nor should other hon. Members complain about the Government's desire to secure their business.
  The Bills are important for the industries concerned. There has been widespread concern across the House that important issues are not given sufficient time for debate. For example, last week, the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) pressed strongly for a debate on House of Lords reform. Small measures such as these may be blocked, which takes a great deal of time and causes the Government difficulties in initiating bigger debates.
  Mr. David Winnick: If the minority in the House has rights which are respected—I hope that that will always be the case—should not we also recognise the rights of the majority? If a small minority of Members causes lengthy delays, despite remaining perfectly in order, surely the majority has a right to put its foot down and say, "Enough is enough."
  Mr. Tipping: My hon. Friend may have an opportunity to put his foot down if the motion is pressed to a Division. It is a matter for the House and he will be able to express his view. I have expressed mine: a small group of Members is needlessly holding up the business of the House to the inconvenience of a great many other Members.
  Mr. Richard Shepherd: Why have the Government decided to consolidate what are effectively two guillotine motions into one? That denies the House the opportunity properly to discuss the motion. I should be grateful to the Minister if he would advise us why the Secretaries of State responsible for the Bills are not leading the debate. The precedent was in the 1970s when, as the Minister will recall, the relevant Secretaries of State spoke on the sections of the motion that related to their Bills and explained the necessity for a guillotine.
  Mr. Tipping: I am supported by my hon. Friend the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs. The precedents on such matters are far from clear. The hon. Gentleman asks why two Bills are being guillotined by one motion. He makes the point that there is insufficient time, but three hours have been made available to discuss the motion. I hope that the House will debate the motion quickly so that we can deal with the important matters.
  3.50 pm
  Sir Patrick Cormack: The Minister is one of the most courteous Members in the House, and we all acknowledge that, but I am bound to tell him that he dealt with the motion in an exceptionally perfunctory manner. I am also bound to tell him that I think it a great pity that the Leader of the House is not here—indeed, I am sorry that she did not introduce the debate. Given that she too is a Member of impeccable courtesy, I would have expected her at the very least to be present.
  We should consider the context of this debate. In last year's Queen's Speech, the Government put before us one of the heaviest legislative programmes of recent years. Since then, we have seen an attempt by them to push through non-controversial Bills as quickly as possible so that they can get the rest of their legislative programme through. In fact, they have not yet extracted themselves from a legislative quagmire of their own making.
  I accept that although both the Bills we are discussing are important, they are not controversial in a party political sense; but to say that they are not controversial is not to say that they are unimportant. Many pieces of legislation put before the House are non-controversial in a party sense, but are extremely important. I do not think anyone could suggest that a Bill relating to nuclear safeguards, or, indeed, a Bill dealing with sea fishing, deals with an unimportant subject.
  A number of important points were made on Second Reading of the Nuclear Safeguards Bill, which ran for some time. Although the Sea Fishing Grants (Charges) Bill had a briefer Second Reading, again important points were made, especially by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss). I do not believe that the Government have answered either set of points adequately.
  The trouble with the present Government—I acquit the Minister of this charge—is that they are excessively arrogant when it comes to Parliament. The purpose of Parliament is to serve by holding the Executive to account and by scrutinising legislation thoroughly. The present Government seem to be so hell bent on their legislative programme—their agenda—that they are not prepared to allow Parliament to fulfil its role properly.
  We have already heard one reference to this in an intervention, but last week, in business questions, my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) asked yet again—I have lost count of the number of times he and I have asked for this—for a debate on the intergovernmental conference White Paper, and for a debate on reform of the House of Lords. Most important of all in the context of what is currently happening, he asked—for the second consecutive week—for a debate on Sierra Leone.
  People outside Parliament find it incomprehensible that we have so distorted our patterns and procedures—or, rather, the Government have done so—that we do not have the opportunity to debate matters that are in the headlines of every newspaper and news bulletin, at a time when British troops are engaged, albeit with impeccable skill, in one of the most delicate operations in which British troops have been engaged for a long time.
  Ms Tess Kingham: Does the hon. Gentleman not concede that we would have more time for

  681
  important debates on such subjects as Sierra Leone, and other vital topics that concern our constituents, if we were not kept up all night by silly games that have very little to do with scrutinising legislation, and more to do with the Opposition's attempts to keep the Government up all night, make them tired and prevent discussion of the important issues of the day?
  Sir Patrick Cormack: I read of the hon. Lady's declaration at the weekend. All I would say to her is that she has failed to understand what being a Member of Parliament is all about. She has failed to understand what she has to do in this place: she treats this as a job that should involve fixed hours, and clocking on and off. We are here as the servants of the people who sent us here, and we are expected to debate at length important issues, whether they be of a partisan nature or, as these two Bills are, of a non-partisan nature.
  We would of course have made sure that the hon. Lady lost her seat at the next election, but I am sorry that she is voluntarily throwing in the towel. If people such as her treat the House as an ordinary place of work, they have fundamentally misunderstood the historic nature of the British Parliament.
  Mr. Eric Forth: Is my hon. Friend aware that on Friday the House sat between the hours of 9.30 am and 2.30 pm and made law, very successfully as it turned out, yet none of the Members who are making the loudest protest about unsocial hours managed to be present?
  Sir Patrick Cormack: I had better answer that rather carefully, because I was not here on Friday either. My right hon. Friend makes a valid point. I am well aware that on Fridays he regularly travels here from the far distances of Bromley. We could all learn from his parliamentary expertise.
  The hon. Member for Gloucester (Ms Kingham), when she intervened, and the Parliamentary Secretary, when he introduced the debate, seemed to be suffering from a parliamentary amnesia. I well remember in the early 1970s, when we were in opposition, parliamentarians of the calibre of the late John Mendelson and the late Bob Cryer perfectly rightly and properly inconvenienced the then Conservative Government time after time, week after week. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is not in his place, because he was a past master at that. I shall never forget when he kept us vastly entertained for some considerable time on a debate as to whether a by-election writ should be moved. He was properly exercising his parliamentary right to try to delay the Government of the day moving forward with legislation of which he wholeheartedly disapproved. That is a historic right of the Back Bencher, whoever the Government of the day are.
  Mr. Winnick: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way; he is always courteous. Does he realise that there is a difference between keeping us up all night on, say, the national minimum wage legislation, which is an issue of great importance to the Government and to the Opposition—I know of no Labour Member who complained about that—and keeping us all night on issues
  682
  that are not particularly controversial? A small minority of Members—not Opposition Front-Benchers—legitimately consider it their duty to keep the debate going on and on, if necessary all night.
  This should no longer be a gentleman's club. If my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Ms Kingham) has come to the view that people of her generation and gender are not able to carry out their responsibilities as a Member of Parliament as they would like to, with all respect to the hon. Gentleman I believe that that is a loss to Parliament.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: I disagree. I believe very strongly that it is not the job of Parliament to adjust its procedures for the convenience of individual Members. I believe passionately in this place. I believe in this Chamber. I readily concede that the hon. Gentleman has a point when he refers to the broad-brush approach of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth).
  Mrs. Dunwoody rose—
  Mr. Bercow rose—
  Sir Patrick Cormack: May I reply to hon. Members one at a time? Then I will give way to the hon. Lady.
  My right hon. Friend has been goaded beyond endurance by the cavalier manner in which the Government have treated the House over their general legislative programme. He is not the Rupert of debate, as a 19th century parliamentarian was once referred to; he is the Dick Turpin of debate—or being the American aficionado that he is, perhaps the Jesse James of debate. He wants to hold up everything in sight. He has done that for a purpose. He has perceived a Government who know only two instruments—the steamroller and the sledgehammer. He has done his best—I pay tribute to him—to underline that fact to the British people.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: Does the hon. Gentleman remember the occasion when the present Chairman of the Liaison Committee and his very good friend, who is now in another place, held up every conceivable bit of legislation, irrespective of its worth, to ensure that the reformation of the House of Lords did not go ahead, because they had decided that what was on offer was in the interests neither of Parliament nor of anyone else?
  Sir Patrick Cormack: Indeed I do, although that was just before I came into the House in 1970. It was a wholly legitimate exercise. If the Government are seeking to put through legislation that, in the view of certain Members, is not in the interests of the country or their constituents, they have every right to use every legitimate parliamentary weapon to seek to make it difficult for the Government to get their business through.
  We all know that the present Government have a huge and overwhelming majority. We know that, because of that, it is inconceivable that, in the Division Lobby, we can overturn an item of Government legislation, but the hon. Lady is right. She is a consummate parliamentarian. The problem in the present House of Commons is that we have far too many Members of Parliament and not enough parliamentarians. She is right to underline not only the

  683
  historic opportunity of the Back Bencher, but the historic duty. It is the duty of a Member of Parliament, if he or she believes that what is being done is inimical to the interests of the country, to seek to use whatever legitimate device is available to stop it or to hold it up. If the debate achieves nothing else but to underline that historic right of Parliament, it will have achieved some purpose, even though it was introduced in such a brief way by the Parliamentary Secretary.
  Mr. Bercow: Is my hon. Friend aware that, even if we were not debating the allocation of time motion, and instead all four hours available were devoted to the consideration of the 32 new clauses and amendments to the Nuclear Safeguards Bill, it would apparently be acceptable to the hon. Member for Gloucester (Ms Kingham) that, on average, each of them should receive consideration by the House for seven and a half minutes?
  Sir Patrick Cormack: My hon. Friend makes a good point. I speak on the subject with, I hope, reasonable credentials. I well remember walking out of a debate on the guillotine during the Conservative Administration because I felt that not enough time was being given to a very important Bill. On a number of occasions, I refused to support a guillotine brought in by my own Government. One must use that weapon with extreme care. The current issue of "Erskine May" says that guillotine motions
  may be regarded as the extreme limit to which procedure goes in affirming the rights of the majority at the expense of the minorities of the House, and it cannot be denied that they are capable of being used in such a way as to upset the balance, generally so carefully preserved, between the claims of business, and the rights of debate.
  That is what it is all about. It is the judgment of the Government in resorting to the guillotine that we question today.
  I know that "programming" is a word that is anathema to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, but I think that even he would concede that there is perhaps a case, with certain non-controversial but important measures, perhaps to give some regard to that. However, just for the point of the argument, he is an absolutist. In a sense, he is the—what colour is his tie today? He is the technicolour incorruptible of this place. I cannot call him the sea-green incorruptible. [Interruption.] He is certainly not a Shi'ite, as the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs says from a sedentary position.
  Putting on one side for a moment my right hon. Friend's extremely purist view, I should say that there is a case for programming certain measures. However, in this case, the Government did not attempt to come and say, "Should we programme these particular measures so that they receive adequate and proper discussion?" Indeed, on various occasions—we have the same tomorrow—the Government have scheduled two Bills for Second Reading on a single day. I believe that that is just not the way in which Parliament should be treated.
  Mr. Shepherd: I am very interested in the argument that my hon. Friend is developing, not least because he played a part in that extraordinary day when the then Labour Government proposed five guillotines in one day. In this Parliament, however, the Government—with a little support from the official and the unofficial Opposition Front Benchers—have introduced about
  684
  40 guillotines. Use of the guillotine is now not only a ritual reminder of the Government's importance, but a deliberate attempt to manage the business of the House and to deny freedom of speech to many Back Benchers on both sides of the House.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: I tell my hon. Friend that, as "Erskine May" has it, the Opposition have most certainly not connived at 40 guillotines; that is not right. What we have had is some agreed programmes. Regardless of who is in government, one has to balance the programme. Although the Government are in office now, potentially they are tomorrow's Opposition. A quite good political maxim is, "Do not do to others what you would not have done to yourself."
  It is a matter of getting the balance right. I believe that, in this Parliament and in this matter, the balance has not been got right. The Government have treated Parliament with some disdain—as demonstrated in the number of announcements that they have made not to the House but outside it, before hon. Members have been told. In a sense, these guillotines show the ultimate disdain.
  Mr. Keith Darvill: The hon. Gentleman mentioned balance. However, when considering that balance, should not Back Benchers take into account, among other things, the number of amendments tabled to a Bill in Committee and the length of the Committee's consideration of that Bill? If the Committee has not examined legislation in great detail, does that not indicate how many important issues need to be addressed in the legislation?
  Sir Patrick Cormack: With genuine respect, I think that the hon. Gentleman misunderstands the situation. Every amendment that is selected for consideration in Committee is selected by the Chairman of that Committee. The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) and I have been joint Chairmen of a number of Standing Committees. I think it is true to say that at the beginning of this Parliament, I had served on the panel of Chairmen longer than any other Opposition Member. The fact is that Chairmen select carefully, with regard to what is relevant, and that they are advised at every point by the Clerks.
  Sometimes, it is appropriate that an amendment should be debated not so much in Committee, but on Report—on the Floor of the House—where every hon. Member will have the opportunity to attend. On Report, it is again a matter—as you will know all too well, Madam Speaker—of a proper selection of amendments; nothing is selected that is out of order. Therefore, everything that appears on the Order Paper and is selected for debate is proper, relevant and can be—indeed, should be—debated.
  It is a matter of—I keep coming back to this word—balance. I believe that the Government have the balance wrong, and that, in the process, they have dealt a very real blow to the whole foundation of parliamentary representative democracy.
  Mr. David Maclean: Before my hon. Friend concludes his remarks, I hope that he will reflect once again on the point made by the hon. Member for Upminster (Mr. Darvill) and the preposterous notion that he seemed to be proposing to the House—that

  685
  because a Committee of 12, 18 or 24 colleagues carefully considered a matter, there is no need for the other 630 colleagues who had not been on the Committee to consider it at all. That would make a mockery of Report and disallow all the rest of us from properly contributing to parliamentary debate and to Bills as they are passed by the House.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: Of course; that is the point that I was seeking to make. Report stage is the one occasion when all hon. Members have the opportunity not just to attend—they can turn up and listen to the proceedings in Committee—but to take part.
  Very often, the majority of amendments come not from the Back Benches or from the Opposition, but from the Government—and this Government have been as guilty of that as any that I can remember in my time here. Sometimes that is commendable, because it means that the Government have listened to the arguments, conceded a point and brought forward amendments on Report to remedy a situation. That has happened during this Parliament, but only on two or three Bills. For the most part, the Government amendments have been tabled to cover up their own technical ineptitude—and in some cases because of a misreading of the situation that beggars belief. I need only utter the two words "Utilities Bill" without expanding on that—and therefore being rebuked by you, Madam Speaker—to illustrate my point.
  I ask the Minister—if he will be kind enough to listen—to talk to the Leader of the House and tell her that we regard her as our Leader of the House. Her job transcends the party political. Of course she is an important member of the Cabinet and has a party political role—no sensible Member of Parliament would dispute that for half a minute—but she also has a parliamentary role second in importance only to the supreme parliamentary role of Madam Speaker.
  The Leader of the House is actively involved in the business of the House. It is not for Madam Speaker to say whether a Minister shall make a statement, as she has so often said. However, the Leader of the House has the regulation and control of Government business. We are suffering from the Government's disdainful and, on occasions, contemptuous approach to Parliament. We are not allowed time to debate issues of great importance, because the legislative programme crowds out everything else. It is so enormous that Members of Parliament do not have an opportunity adequately to digest, let alone debate, the measures that are put before us. Parliament's role is being unbalanced by the Executive. That is an extremely important point.
  I accept that the inimitable behaviour of my right hon. Friends the Members for Bromley and Chislehurst and for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) is sometimes exasperating for all concerned. I remember once quoting to them Richter's famous words to the third flute:
  Your damned nonsense can I stand twice or once, hut sometimes always, by God, never.
  However, they are performing a service to Parliament and I pay an unreserved and unqualified tribute to that. They see a Parliament that is being railroaded by the Government. On the precept that was so very well enunciated by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich,
  686
  they are saying that they are not going to put up with it. In doing so, they have entered into the long and honourable lineage of fiercely independent, sometimes bloody-minded, true servants of Parliament in whose debt we all stand.
  Mr. Michael Fabricant: Does my hon. Friend share the sentiment behind the words of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), who said to me two years before the last general election that when the Government get themselves into a hole, they legislate too much? Would it not be good advice to this Government not only to slow down the legislative process, but to stop it altogether?
  Sir Patrick Cormack: It would be a good thing if the Government rationed the number of Bills that they placed before this House. I hope that, at the next general election—at which I am confident the Government and Opposition parties will be transposed—we will make a promise that is often made to the electorate: that there will be less legislation, not more. I hope that that is a promise that we then fulfil. We need legislation that is carefully considered and drafted, and legislation to which every hon. Member has the opportunity to contribute. That cannot be done if we submerge Parliament in a vast number of Bills which there is not enough time for hon. Members to digest, let alone debate.
  The Government have their own legislative ineptitude to thank for the motion. They are doing a scant service to the Parliament they would pretend to honour in tabling the motion. I hope that when we come to vote, my right hon. and hon. Friends will all resolutely vote against it.
  4.16 pm
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: When the last election was called, I desperately wanted Labour to win because I felt that previous Governments over a period of about 20 years had increasingly behaved as if Parliament were not relevant to the government of the country. For a long time, we had had people in charge who no longer understood the role of Members of Parliament, and were not prepared to consider in detail either legislation affecting ordinary people or the implications of what they were doing.
  I believed that my Government would be different. I believed that they would insist on parliamentary matters being dealt with seriously. Answers to parliamentary questions, even awkward ones, would be honest and straightforward. I believed that the parliamentary timetable would be organised in such a way that we would see a new era of responsibility and the flowering of the important role that Parliaments have played in the UK almost since the time of the Anglo-Saxons.
  When I see an Order Paper with a timetable motion—for two Bills, not one—I am disappointed in terms of my hopes for the incoming Government. It is my duty to say these things, which will not make me popular on this side of the House. Nor will I be appreciated by many new Members of Parliament, who will only too readily write off the views of anyone who does not believe that our role in Parliament is to be a salaried employee of particular parties, answerable not to those who send us here and perhaps not even, in a wider sense, to the constituencies that are, to me, the final and most important arbiter of my role.

  687
  I am deeply saddened by the fact that, yet again, a timetable motion has been tabled. A dangerous idea is growing that if we were somehow to reorganise the hours of Parliament and go home at 5 pm—like well brought up office personnel—and if we were not to sit through the night, we would produce better legislation. We would be able to round off in simple and sonorous terms those legal opinions that are to be included in legislation. That is not the case.
  Parliament has always existed to express the views of ordinary men and women, although it has at times been manipulated by those in government or in power. Sometimes it ignores those views or translates them in a way that many of us find unacceptable. Sometimes Parliament believes that it has such God-given rights that it can override the views of those who have a vote and a say in how people get here. In reality, Parliament—although it took a considerable time before it admitted women—has historically acted to represent the peoples of this country and, fundamentally, has protected the essential aspects of democracy.
  I hope that the right hon. Members for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) will forgive me if I say that neither of them are automatically high on the list of people whom I love dearly. Nevertheless, what they are doing and have done is not unique. Indeed, they are not even as efficient as some of my colleagues have been in the past. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) used often to be given instructions by previous Labour Whips to keep business going for as long as possible to cause the maximum difficulty.
  I also remember my late friend John Golding, the former Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme, making the longest recorded speech in modern parliamentary history on a telecommunications Bill, because he believed that what was being offered to the House was inadequate and wrong. He chose to use the methods of Parliament to try to change that. In doing so, he used devices that would have seemed pathetically complicated to people outside. They could have been described as little boys' games, but they were based on an understanding of the procedures of the House of Commons and an ability to use those procedures to have an effect on the progress of legislation.
  Such actions are legitimate, although they may be irritating. I do not particularly want to be here in the middle of the night. In fact, it occurred to me the other day that when I first entered the House, I was told that I should stay up all night because I was part of the payroll vote. Now I am told that I have to stay up all night because I am not part of the payroll vote. I cannot understand what happened in the interim when I got it all wrong.
  The growing use of timetable motions is a retrograde step, and I say that no matter who introduces them. I do not even understand why timetable motions are necessary on the Bills that we are considering today. However, I am concerned by the idea that somehow Parliament can be organised, like local authorities, into short days or a shorter week. Parliament cannot be organised into a nice, neat tidy bundle so that the Executive take decisions, tell Parliament what they have decided and produce Bills that, even if they are wrong, can be presented as a package and pushed through, because no one any longer alters a word of them. Such an approach is dangerous and depressing.
  688
  It is also depressing—as the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) pointed out—that senior members of the Government are not even prepared to come to the House and argue the case. They could at least have the decency to tell us why we must accept this motion. All Members of Parliament understand that we got here with the support of party politicians and need to defend particular party political views, but we also have a duty to ordinary men and women who have let this Parliament grow up over 900 years because they thought that if they could hear their views expressed here by the Members whom they elected, they were defending democracy.
  Parliament is not a rubber stamp for the arrangements of Executives or of Front Benchers. There have been occasions when it has suited Opposition Front Benchers to make arrangements with the Government, and I understand why that happens. Whips Offices must manage business, but we should not forget that there is something deeper about what we do here than getting the House's business on the statute book. That means that we cannot behave as if we are councillors. We will not be able to maintain a life in which our families can see us whenever they want. I had three children when I first entered the House, aged 12, 10 and 8. I therefore know what tremendous costs family life has to bear. That is the same for males and females. This is a brutal place. It destroys more people than it creates. Those of us who come here do so because we believe that democracy and the expression of the views of ordinary voters are of fundamental importance.
  The House has withstood the arrogance of previous Prime Ministers. It has withstood the arrangements of elite groups who think that they can get what they want merely by dictating to Parliament. It can withstand the business arrangements of the Front-Bench Members of both large parties, who think it convenient not to allow people to get in the way of what they want. If ever those groups succeed in getting what they want, we shall know that Parliament no longer represents the interests of the United Kingdom.
  4.26 pm
  Mr. Andrew Stunell: It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). She is a formidable opponent, and one suspects that she could be a dangerous friend as well.
  Liberal Democrat Members do not support the motion. We think that the Government have lost their nerve to some extent by requiring the House to consider two timetable motions and four Bills in one day. As has been boasted about and admitted in the House today, the Government have suffered some provocation, but Governments should not lose their temper when facing provocation from those they do not like. Governments with commanding majorities in the House should show responsibility, whereas Opposition parties are entitled to show irresponsibility on occasion. It is the job of Parliament to contain that diversity, and it is the job of Opposition Members to do their best to resist what the Government want to achieve.
  I must say, however, that it is hard to support every detail of what the right hon. Members for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) have been trying to do. I have had the sometimes doubtful privilege of sitting through many

  689
  contributions from the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst in this House. It is occasionally hard to see how legislation is improved by that process, or how amendments tabled by those right hon. Gentlemen would allow it to emerge from the process in better shape.
  Mr. Maclean: I invite the hon. Gentleman to check the Hansard report of last week's debate on the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill. The spokesman for the Liberal Democrats, the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker), commented on the new provisions on compensation for farmers and other matters that the Government had built into the Bill. Those issues were raised by me and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), among others, a year before, when the original Bill on fur farming was before the House. We objected to that Bill, and obstructed its progress, because it lacked those provisions. The Government added them to this year's Bill because of the action that we took—a fact that won the praise of some Liberal Democrat Members.
  Mr. Stunell: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention, but the Order Paper states that this motion refers to the Nuclear Safeguards Bill and the Sea Fishing Grants (Charges) Bill. Moreover, given enough time, a group of monkeys will type the collected works of Shakespeare, so sooner or later any hon. Member might come up with an amendment that would improve a measure. By no means do I discount the process of scrutiny by the House, but it might be carried out more effectively and efficiently. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that I support his right to act as he chooses. I am simply drawing to the House's attention the factors that I consider render the Government's reaction wrong.
  Mr. Bercow: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the course of five hours' debate on the Bill's Second Reading on 10 April, my right hon. and hon. Friends and I asked innumerable questions? Is he further aware that the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs was denied the opportunity of a reply to that debate, because the rug was pulled out from under his feet by the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office? Is the hon. Gentleman further aware that on 18 April the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch) aired concerns in Committee to which he required a response? In those circumstances, does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be helpful if the Minister indicated whether he intends to respond to the debate on the new clauses and amendments this afternoon?
  Mr. Stunell: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. I would simply say that even the Secretary of State should be able to squeeze that in during the course of a four-hour debate. Perhaps he needs longer, but four hours seem a reasonable time in which to do so.
  I stress that I am not supporting the timetable motion. I accept, as a given, that the process of debate is beneficial to legislation. Ministers should be held to account and we expect viable, comprehensible and comprehensive answers to issues raised by Opposition Members and Government Back Benchers. That is not in dispute.
  690
  I might question whether that is the most effective way for contributions to be made, but that is not the essence of my remarks.
  The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich made some powerful points. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members who were not in the Chamber to hear the hon. Lady's speech will take the trouble to read it in Hansard. She warned of the risk of increasing Government dictatorship over the House. She referred eloquently to the House's 900-year history. The first 800 years may not have gone according to Labour Members' wishes but, depending on the culture of the times, the House has been a powerful way of controlling the Executive for a long time. Hardly anyone would dispute that it has become less effective, however. The reasons for that are not all connected with the introduction of too many guillotine motions. They include the introduction of a very strong party structure and, in the past century, almost continuous universal majority party rule of Parliament and the Executive.
  The hon. Lady might want to reflect on whether her views give a complete picture of the situation when it comes to seemingly relishing the masochistic aspect of Parliament. The idea is that one should expect to start work at 2.30 in the afternoon and work until 2.30 in the morning. If not, one could not be said to be qualified for Parliament. I put it to the hon. Lady that that is not a complete picture.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: I agree absolutely. That is why the Committees of the House do not start at half-past two in the afternoon. That is why Select Committees frequently meet at different times. Members of Parliament take part in debates elsewhere in the House—in Westminster Hall, in the Committee Rooms and in Standing Committees. The idea that the House starts work at half-past two in the afternoon may be propagated generally, but it is not accurate.
  Mr. Stunell: I thank the hon. Lady for that confirmation of her point of view. I am what is generally described as an owl, rather than a lark, and it suits me very well to be up at 2.30 in the morning. I look forward to being kept up by the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border in future. However, although such a course looks convincing in the statistics, it is not the best way of employing Members of the House in holding the Government to account.
  I have made the point repeatedly in the debate—and I shall continue to make it outside the Chamber—that imposing a guillotine motion is not the response that a mature and responsible Government should make to the deficiencies in the running of this place. If there are deficiencies in the direction of there being too great a control of the House by the Executive, the solution is not to increase that control by the imposition of guillotines.
  Mr. Fabricant: I am finding the hon. Gentleman's argument somewhat confused. What is he arguing for as a way of holding the Government to account—a Government who have a larger majority than there are Conservative Members? What other mechanisms would he propose?
  Mr. Stunell: I am in danger of being led out of order. I could mention many mechanisms. One would be a

  691
  Parliament that represented the people by the introduction of proportional representation. Another would be the extension of pre-legislative scrutiny, as recommended to the House. Yet another would be the implementation of a proper procedure for having our business organised throughout the year as well as throughout the week. Those are all matters on which I have gone on the record, as has my party, and we shall continue to do so. However, there are Conservative Members who prefer to continue with the old techniques, which did not prevent the poll tax or the Child Support Agency. Similarly, they did not rescue Parliament from gaining a reputation for passing bad law too often.
  Mr. Owen Paterson: What is the Liberal definition of a proper procedure?
  Mr. Stunell: I can define what the procedure is according to Liberal Democrats. I cannot speak for anybody else. I and my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) have submitted a paper, which I trust will be published in the proceedings of the Modernisation Committee. It is being considered almost as we speak. Perhaps those are matters for another debate.
  Mr. Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Stunell: I am happy to follow this line but I am not sure, Mr. Deputy Speaker, how far I should stray from the terms of the motion.
  Mr. Bercow: Unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman is wallowing in a sea of obfuscation. I suspect that most Opposition Members believe that the country suffers from over-government. As we are considering the allocation of time for consideration of legislation, will the hon. Gentleman, on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, tell the House whether he agrees with the Conservative Opposition that it is objectionable in principle that the Government should be allowed to ram through the House in one parliamentary day no fewer than four Bills?
  Mr. Stunell: I started by saying yes to that question, and I will say it again—yes. To have two guillotine motions in respect of four Bills in one day is a sign of a Government who have lost their nerve and are responding immaturely to provocation. I do not know whether I can make myself any plainer than that. That is our view.
  There is a better organised and more formal approach. The business of the House should be planned in a much better way, and we have definite proposals that would enable that to be done. Sadly, they are not on the Order Paper.
  I strongly urge the Government and the official Opposition to take notice of the public's views of the way in which the House conducts itself. I want them both to take account of the true quality of the outputs of the House. I think that Members on both sides of the House share the view, and the frustration, that it is not effective at holding the Government to account. It does not pass high-quality legislation and it does not allow the best form of representation of the people who elected its Members. That is a greater cause for concern than the motion.
  The proposed guillotine does not have the support of Liberal Democrats. I hope that we shall reject it and proceed to consider other business.
  4.39 pm
  Mr. David Winnick: I apologise in advance for having to leave this debate. I am a member of a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation and, if I do not attend it at some point. I shall doubtless be guillotined by my Whips. [Interruption.] Yes, no doubt the Opposition would greatly miss me.
  A charge of arrogance has been made against the Government. I have the same respect for the House of Commons as I had when I first entered the House many years ago. The House is a place for debate, and even, sometimes, for delaying matters. I accept the rights of the Opposition. I spent 18 years on the Opposition Benches, and often heard Government spokesmen introducing guillotines by saying that they were absolutely necessary. This is no unique occasion on which a wicked Government are moving a guillotine. Successive Governments have reached the view that guillotines are necessary.
  As I look across the House, the only Conservative Member whom I can see who, under the previous Government, and to his credit, opposed all—at least, almost all; he certainly gave the impression that he did—guillotine motions is the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd). I cannot recall any other Conservative Member present being so strenuously opposed to guillotines when he sat on the Government Benches.
  Minorities—even a minority within a minority—have rights and privileges. I do not say that it would be wrong to prevent such Members from prolonging proceedings. It is part of the House of Commons that they should be able to do so, and I have never argued otherwise. However, the time must come—as it has now—when the rights of the majority must also be considered. If that is not so, one or two Members on the Opposition Benches may prolong proceedings by speaking endlessly on a certain measure—within the rules of order, no doubt, and sometimes with the help of colleagues who rise to say, "Does my hon. Friend agree with me?"
  All that may be perfectly in order, but the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack)—who does not take part in such proceedings—cannot really be telling the House that the Government of the day should never respond by bringing in a timetable motion. Should it be that one or two Members—half a dozen at the most—can delay proceedings hour after hour, well into the night, leaving a large majority of Members powerless to act? I cannot accept that. The hon. Gentleman knows better than anyone the history of guillotine motions. They resulted from events in the 19th century, when Irish Members—for good reasons, I believe—delayed the House, and there was no machinery with which the House could respond. Thus was the first guillotine motion introduced, but they have since been used on many occasions by successive Governments.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I was not here in the 1880s. He knows full well that I was arguing that the Government are going in for overkill and distorting the balance of parliamentary priorities. They have so submerged Parliament in legislation that we have reached the pass that we have come to. If he casts his

  693
  mind back, the hon. Gentleman should know that I have opposed guillotines irrespective of which party has been in Government.
  Mr. Winnick: I have been here for many years, but cannot claim to have been here in the 19th century. I do not want to wish to claim longer membership than the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath). If the hon. Member for South Staffordshire opposed guillotine motions from his own side, I am glad to hear that he joined the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills in doing so.
  In a previous Parliament, the Jopling Committee looked into the hours of the House. It was chaired by a former Tory Minister and Chief Whip, and among its recommendations about our hours it argued that we should, in the main, not sit beyond 10 o'clock. Hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), argue that we must not change our ways and that it would be quite wrong to do so; why then were the conclusions of the Jopling Committee accepted almost unanimously? Despite that, during this Parliament, we have sat after 10 o'clock more often than previously.
  I hear the point made by some hon. Members that we are not really in a working place, but I disagree.
  Mr. Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Winnick: No, because I shall keep my remarks brief.
  This is a working place and it changes—as it has done over centuries. There is no reason why, for example, my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Ms Kingham) should be forced to conclude that it is impossible for her to combine her domestic responsibilities with her parliamentary duties. Although it is unlikely that we shall sit from 9 to 5 o'clock—for all sorts of reasons—and I have never advocated anything of the kind, we must realise that there are people who could make a contribution to the House of Commons, but who have domestic responsibilities. They have a private life—and why not? Surely we are not saying that we cannot adjust—that we are so inflexible that it is not possible for us to change our ways at all.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Winnick: I shall not give way, because I want to conclude.
  I am willing to sit through the night on important issues. We can all decide for ourselves what is important—I gave the national minimum wage as one illustration. As my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich mentioned, I was in the Chamber when Michael Foot and Enoch Powell—for differing reasons—opposed changes to the House of Lords. Those were fundamental issues—of the greatest importance. I do not remember that Labour Members were complaining in the Tea Room then, because they understood what was involved.
  However, why should we stay here hour after hour to discuss relatively non-controversial issues? We know that such matters are not of the greatest importance—although
  694
  I do not want to minimise their importance. Why should we stay here through the night, simply because one or two Opposition Members believe that they are making a contribution for their party? As I said, they have a perfect right to try to do so, but surely we too have a right to say that enough is enough, and that we want to conclude the debate and move on to other business.
  People outside—our constituents—find it impossible to understand why we sit here all night. They say, in effect, "Are you not too tired? Can you really pass important Bills that affect the lives of ordinary people by debating at 2, 4 or 5 o'clock in the morning? Why don't you have more sensible hours?" That is the view of the country. Although it may be a simplistic approach—
  Mr. Paterson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Winnick: No.
  The guillotine motion is perfectly justified. We have a right to proceed with our business. I see no reason why we should not do so tonight.
  4.48 pm
  Mr. Richard Shepherd: For many Members of the House the matter is not merely one of administrative convenience, as the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) seems to suggest. It is one of principle—as was reflected in the speech made by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody).
  The matter touches on the very purposes and functions of the House. Given the long parliamentary career of the hon. Member for Walsall, North, he will recall the processes whereby guillotines were introduced. During the 1945–51 Labour Government, there were only five guillotines. If the two motions are passed today, about 40 Bills will have been guillotined in less than three years.
  Mr. Tipping: Perhaps I could correct the hon. Gentleman—as his hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) tried to do earlier. If the guillotine motions are passed, the number will be 19—not 40.
  Mr. Shepherd: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman look both at the Library briefing on guillotine motions and at the Sessional Orders. I think that the total number was 36 at the last count. The motions apply to four Bills; I am talking about the number of guillotined Bills.
  In fact, the number of guillotine motions is higher than the number of Bills guillotined because sometimes a Bill requires a second, or even a third, guillotine motion—perhaps on Lords amendments or in Committee. However, the degrading of our processes in respect of such motions means that we no longer handle them with the respect that the House once expected.
  I notice that the motion on the Order Paper is in the name of the Leader of the House, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. If the Parliamentary Secretary considers the five guillotine motions that were moved by Michael Foot in the mid-1970s, he will find that Secretaries of State themselves led the debate and explained why the motions were necessary.

  695
  The Government no longer have the courtesy to field the Minister responsible for the Bill so that he can tell the House why the process of debate has broken down to such an extent that they have to use a guillotine to expedite business. The Parliamentary Secretary said the fact that one Bill was discussed for one hour and 20 minutes and another for one hour and 13 minutes in Committee was sufficient. He therefore suggested that he did not have to explain why it was necessary to impose guillotine motions on them.
  Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend has considerable and honourable experience of such matters. Can he recall any other motion that imposed a guillotine on a Bill's Report stage before that stage had even begun and after a Bill had received such little consideration in Committee?
  Mr. Shepherd: My right hon. Friend poses a question that I am unable to answer. Guillotines have become fashionable since the war and there have been many of them. Therefore, I regret to say that there is probably a precedent.
  Mr. Bercow: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government's justification—which was supported by the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick)—is especially bizarre given that the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs, did not reply on 10 April to the Second Reading debate on the Nuclear Safeguards Bill and given that no fewer than 33 amendments have been tabled for Report?
  Mr. Shepherd: I agree with my hon. Friend. The very essence of a guillotine is to deny the opportunity for debate or to give rise to the possibility that Members might not be able to speak on matters that they think are germane or important. I reflect on the one hour 12 minutes and the one hour 13 minutes that were spent on the Bills in Committee and recall my experience of sitting on Committees that considered Bills which were eventually subject to a guillotine. I need only mention the Telecommunications Act 1984, which privatised BT. It spent 180 hours in Committee before the Government felt able to bring the most draconian parliamentary practice to bear on it.
  Let us be clear in our minds: there has been a degradation. As I said, 40 Bills—and probably well over 50 guillotine motions—have been exercised by the Government in a little over three years. Mrs. Thatcher's Government were much attacked for their use of the guillotine, but they introduced about 60 guillotine motions in 11 years. In one Parliament under this Government, the drumbeat of the guillotine has been used to limit freedom of expression.
  When the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich spoke, she referred to the essential purpose of the House. It has been said often enough that we represent defined areas—our constituencies—and we are not sent here to govern because that is the role of the Executive. Their tolerance and understanding of the balance of arguments make up what I call the due process of Parliament.
  Any Member, however junior and whether the hon. Member for Gloucester (Ms Kingham), has a right to stand up and speak on matters that affect his or her
  696
  constituency. There are 659 of us and there is a heavy legislative programme. However, if the Government try to put a quart into a pint pot, something will have to give. The Government say that the right to freedom of speech and expression must therefore give, not that we should curtail in any way the important measures before the House. That is the essence of the matter, which, of course, is the most flagrant assertion of the strength and power of an Executive over their party and the expression of the majority over the minority.
  The House always used to be careful about that balance. It is not fashionable to discuss that and Liberal Democrat Members are in a muddle about whether timetables should be agreed only by Front-Bench Members. I did not know whether the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell), the Liberal Democrat spokesman, was coming or going in his remarkable contribution, but he veered towards saying that the measure is bad because, for some arcane reason, it denies freedom of expression and speech.
  We never know how the pattern of Bills will run, which makes it difficult to fix timetables and guillotines.
  Mr. Stunell rose—
  Mr. Shepherd: I shall finish this theme while it is in my head. On our Front Bench is an honourable opponent of the poll tax. Many in the House came to realise how profoundly wrong was the principle behind that tax during the patient, lengthy exposition of the detail of the Bill introducing it. Indeed, that was a purpose of the process of debate. This Government, however, do not even want that process, which, after all, lets the steam out of the kettle.
  I was profoundly concerned when Nicholas Ridley announced the principle of the Bill introducing the poll tax and asked why a dustman should pay less than a duke. During the passage of the Bill, the argument moved on to the question of why everyone should not pay a little. When a Bill's principles shift so radically, one knows that it is on uncertain ground.
  The Government are in difficulties, as they have introduced several contentious Bills in this Session. I do not understand why they must resort to guillotines, when the Attlee Government, the most remarkable Labour Government in my lifetime—I am now 58—who perhaps transformed the second half of the 20th century in a way previously unknown to the people of this country, needed only five guillotines. In their first year in office, that Government passed 72 pieces of legislation.
  Perhaps we have changed, as in their first year—the first year in office is always slightly longer than the following years—the present Government introduced only 52 Bills, which is, none the less, a considerable number. The House must digest the scale of that burden. There is now a regular drumbeat here, as the Government guillotine an average of 13 or 14 Bills every year. As a result, we are now seeing new management of the House, in which the Executive effectively do away with our role as Back Benchers, as the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich said most eloquently. Now, there is not even a guillotine motion for every Bill, as they have been consolidated.
  I am always fearful about making suggestions to the House: the good ones are rejected and the bad ones—which I make ironically—seem to be accepted. I responded to

  697
  arguments about why I should not speak against the Maastricht Bill by saying that the Whips were searching for a power of attorney. They require Members of Parliament to sign over a power of attorney on first coming to the House, so that the Whips may exercise the vote themselves. The guillotine motions give rise to the following question: why should not the guillotine motion be that all future Bills will be disposed of within one minute or—let us be generous—one hour of the Bill's commencement? After all, it is within the power of the majority in the House to pass such a motion. That could even be the subject of a Bill, if the majority wished. What would our role be? We could all stand up on points of order to the Speaker, but the House would have passed the motion into Standing Orders. It would be among the rules of the House.
  I hope that the Government will detect the mocking tone in which I make the suggestion, and will not seize upon it to meet the objections of the hon. Member for Gloucester, who wants—one cannot call it a more orderly disposal of business—an "off with your head" approach to legislation.
  I know that those on the Front Benches sometimes connive. That is why we have what are called agreed timetable motions, but they are still guillotines. Their purpose is still to limit the opportunity for debate. That may be agreed, or imposed by a majority, as it clearly is in this case.
  I remember the summoning of Parliament during a summer recess, when hon. Members on all three Front Benches had signed up to new prevention of terrorism legislation. The Liberal Democrats—God bless them, as I have commented before—had second thoughts on the very Floor of the House, and withdrew their name from the motion, because they had begun to reflect on its effect. That was an example of intelligence applied to a matter before the House.
  The trouble with Front-Bench agreements—this applies to every hon. Member—is that we are not all party to them. We do not necessarily know that anything has been cooked up. I knew nothing about the matter until last Thursday. There was a change of business, and I saw no reason why that should pose any difficulty for the House, yet we are faced with two motions disposing of four Bills. It is wrong, and the Government know that. All those who were here in past times know that it is wrong.
  I ask hon. Members to reflect on this: why does the Library's descriptive note on the guillotine, which will no doubt be excised in due course, refer to it as the most draconian aspect of parliamentary procedure? No one reflects on that. The House knows that in order to divert the parliamentary Labour party from a re-arrangement of hours, we are considering the guillotine. Goodness knows why, as the guillotine is an option of majority. It is regularly imposed.
  Mr. Winnick: Is the hon. Gentleman saying, in effect, that if matters are delayed considerably because some hon. Members exercise their right and continue to oppose a measure or a number of measures for hours on end, the House should have no protection whatever?
  Mr. Shepherd: The hon. Gentleman will recall that I mentioned the first British Telecom Bill, which was
  698
  discussed for 170 hours in Committee. Where there is wilful delay over many hours or days, I recognise that the House may want to resolve the matter by the imposition of a time limit. I have seen that all my parliamentary life. That is not the point at issue.
  We are presented with the justification for the guillotine on two Bills because they were, respectively, one hour and 12 minutes in Committee and one hour and 13, or 30, minutes in Committee. I intend no disservice to the Minister whose unpleasant duty it is to try to make sense of the appalling motion before us, when I ask why, as a courtesy to the House, members of the Cabinet are not present to justify it.
  This is not a matter of formality; it is a profound matter of principle. The House can be exasperated and, at that point, do something about deliberate delay, but there is no evidence of that in the 40 Bills to which I referred. The House is well aware that guillotines are now being imposed on constitutional matters.
  I see that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Gorrie), who is a Member of the Scottish Parliament, is present. He knows that part of the Scotland Act 1998 was guillotined. The Government of Wales Act 1998 and the Greater London Authority Act 1999 were also guillotined. There are no longer any frontiers. The motion proves that precedent is now on the side of the guillotine, which is the weapon not of Back Benchers, but of the Executive. It is their assertion of absolute control over the House.
  The answer lies in ourselves. We made the point when considering the Freedom of Information Bill, and we shall make it again. The procedure is wrong and it is employed almost ritualistically. The new Labour Government have become fond of telling the House that opposition to such matters is ritualistic; it is not. As the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich pointed out, it is at the heart of our purpose and our being here.
  5.5 pm
  Mr. Doug Henderson: I participate in the debate with some reluctance. The Government will be pleased to know that I support them. I would not speak in the debate if I believed that, if I did not speak, we would discuss the substance of the issues, or we could prevent some of the marauders in the Conservative party from taking up more time. However, by participating, I can say what I believe should happen.
  I have been here for 13 years. Some hon. Members have asked about the extent to which newer hon. Members understand parliamentary matters and should listen to those who have been here a little longer. I listen to those who have been here longer than me—I always listen to my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), who made several points. She believes with great passion that we should go in a specific direction. I cannot agree with her. I do not agree with her comments today and I did not agree with those sentiments 13 years ago.
  My first job in this place was serving on a Standing Committee that considered a measure to enable privatisation of the water industry. It contained approximately six clauses. In the middle of October, the Labour Chief Whip told us, "Just keep it going till February." That was supposed to be a method of disposing effectively of an important measure. We kept a Bill of six

  699
  clauses going until February. Once, I spoke for two hours 20 minutes on whether one could better consult the public on privatisation at St. James' Park or Roker Park. I am confident that if I had brought Hartlepool's ground into the equation, I could have sustained the speech for a bit longer. I have therefore served my time as a marauder. Several colleagues in the Chamber have fulfilled that role recently. I know the game, but I do not believe that it enhances democracy or the reputation of Parliament.
  I am not totally uncritical of the Government. They have probably introduced too much legislation. I realise that they do not want to listen to my messages; nevertheless, my message to them would be to be more selective. The punters in my constituency do not understand 50 Bills. However, they might get a grip on three or four important measures, such as the minimum wage, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) referred earlier. The Government should be a little more selective in introducing measures. If they introduce too much legislation, they bring on themselves some of the tensions that we are all currently experiencing.
  However, I do not blame the Government entirely, or the marauders on the Opposition Benches. The right hon. Gentlemen from Scottish backgrounds will know that I call them sleekit marauders who operate only at night, but I do not blame them because they are only taking advantage of the parliamentary procedures available to any Member or small group of Members who wish to hold the rest of the House to ransom.
  Mr. Forth: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way as he referred to me and to my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean). He may not be aware that my right hon. Friend and I were here on Friday when two excellent Bills made progress. The House sits on many Fridays. Regrettably, few other Members attended other than my right hon. Friend and myself, who were here doing our duty. Most of the Lady Members who complain bitterly about the alleged anti-social hours of the House did not attend, but the House sat between 9.30 am and 3 pm on Friday, and was very thinly attended.
  Mr. Henderson: I usually like to hear the right hon. Gentleman's arguments, but he makes one of those ingenious arguments that one used to hear at Glasgow university, which he attended. Some points sound very much like those made in a debating society; they are not related to the real issues that affect this country and our constituents. I do not blame him, other Conservative Members or the Government; I blame the system, which needs reform. Whatever a Government's colour, they will face more and more demands to legislate and regulate to protect the public and their human rights, which the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) thinks very important.
  Mr. Paterson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Henderson: In a little while.
  There will be such pressures and we must design a system that allows the Government to set priorities and Members to comment on them in the House. The Government's programme must be accountable, but a
  700
  distinction has to be drawn in parliamentary procedures between important issues, such as armed forces reform or major economic or social security changes, and the role of ice-cream salesmen in a royal park. That is my argument with the current system. We in the House are all far too conservative; we must consider reforms that would make the House efficient and effective.
  Mr. Paterson rose—
  Ms Kingham rose—
  Mr. Henderson: I shall give way in a second.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Ms Kingham) is a very able Back Bencher and when I was a Minister she asked me one of the hardest questions that I ever had to deal with in a Standing Committee. Contrary to some of the points that have been made by Opposition Members, she asks good questions and is interested in the real issues. It pains me that younger people with family commitments are not able to fulfil them and still make the impact in the House that they could. That is a tragedy. They could make an impact in industry and commerce even if they had family commitments because they are more realistic about, and tolerant of, the family. We preach about family values in the House, but it is the most family unfriendly institution that I have ever known.
  Ms Kingham: Several issues need to be addressed. As hon. Members on both sides of the House have said, some Members want the House to work from 9 to 5, as in any other job. Those of us who criticise the current system are not saying that; we do not mind working incredibly long hours. When I was involved in international development, I always worked long hours, went overseas at the drop of a hat and worked at 3 or 4 in the morning. That is not a problem—when it is worth while. However, many of us feel that it is difficult to do a good job for our constituents when we have to sit up all night or are called in at the whim of a few others to take part in such silly activities. That does our constituents no credit and involves putting off appointments to the next day or rejigging them completely, which causes unpredictability—we never know where we are. Those are the real issues.
  Comments have been made about some of us not attending. I have been away for four months having twins. I am terribly sorry, but I cannot leave them at the drop of a hat. This should be a modern Parliament that can accommodate women Members having children as well as serving their constituents.
  Mr. Henderson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising those points. She has brought home far better than I could the extent of the pressures that not only she but others, male and female—although I think the pressures are greater on females than they are on any male—experience in this institution. I think that when reforms come, as they will, hers will prove to have been a major contribution, and I hope that, if she does not stand at the next election, we shall see her back here when her family grows up a bit.
  Mr. Paterson: Will the hon. Gentleman please answer the question posed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth)? He was here

  701
  from 9 am until 2.30 pm on Friday; I was here for the later stages of the debate. As for the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell), who complained during business questions, the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey), who is not here today, and the hon. Member for Gloucester (Ms Kingham), who is leaving the House in a great blaze of publicity, none of them were here. If they will not turn up between 9 am and 2.30 pm, when will they turn up?
  Mr. Henderson: That is a schoolboy debating point, and I shall not waste time on it. The debate is about the House facing up to its responsibilities, and about whether it is prepared to introduce real measures that will reform it.
  I do not normally take part in debates of this kind, but I feel compelled to do so on this occasion because I think that the House is bringing itself into great discredit. There is enormous cynicism among Members of Parliament about the purpose of this place, and that cynicism is being transmitted to the public. If anyone doubts me, he or she should come to Newcastle with me on Friday and ask those who visit my surgeries, or whose community centres I visit, what they think. They will tell any Member of Parliament what they think about the House of Commons.
  The aim of marauders—who act sometimes on their own behalf but, I suspect, sometimes with the co-operation of the Opposition Front Bench, although I do not blame the Opposition Front Bench for this—is to discredit the Government and to suggest that the Government pay no attention to Parliament, and will railroad everything through. The effect of their actions is not only to discredit the Government—in fact, the public will judge whether the Government have been discredited—but to discredit Parliament. Parliament is now viewed with great cynicism, which is why I believe that we must make reforms.
  Parliament is not about the nonsense of staying up all night being very inefficient, making silly and often drunken points after 10 pm. The test of virility seems to be how long Members can speak, not what they say. Members would do well to visit the European and Scottish Parliaments—I have not visited the Welsh Assembly, so I cannot comment on that—and note the efficient way in which they conduct their business. It is possible to argue about the end result, but they conduct their business far more effectively, and when we consider reform of the House we should also consider whether we can learn from some of their procedures.
  When it comes to reform, we must differentiate—I know that this is repetition, Mr. Deputy Speaker—between important issues and issues that are less important. We must differentiate between issues that should be discussed in the House—all night, if they are important and it has been agreed that the time is needed—and issues such as ice-cream vans in royal parks, which I think can be dealt with by a Committee. Ice-cream salespersons and park officials would be happy to hear the arguments put in a Committee; they do not need to hear them put in the Chamber.
  Another major reform should be made: everything should be timetabled. A guillotine system is hopeless, because the accusation will always be made that the Government are acting for their own reasons in the
  702
  particular circumstances. It will be said that there has not been enough debate, and that the Government made the decision even before Report. The only way to avoid such arguments is to timetable every piece of business dealt with by the House and its Committees, giving it an appropriate allocation of time that will depend on the seriousness of the issue.
  The timetable should not be something that can be imposed only by Government Whips. There should be a Government recommendation providing for some fallback—an appeals structure, as it were, giving those who do not think enough time has been given an opportunity to challenge the timetable. Such motions should not be debated every day for three hours: there should be an occasion to deal with them.
  We waste far too much time voting: there is no need for that. We should have electronic voting once a week, when everyone would know they had to be here. The votes could take place very quickly, and there could still be provision for consequential voting when that was essential to the procedure.
  The guillotine motion needs the support of the House if we are to make progress with the business. However, we will be back again in a couple of weeks with more such motions unless we face up to the issue of reforming the House.
  5.20 pm
  Mr. David Maclean: This is an important guillotine motion, because never in my recollection have two guillotine motions been imposed in one day to drive through four Bills when they have had so little debate. We have heard that one Bill may have been debated for one hour 13 minutes or one hour 14 minutes, and another for one hour 12 minutes. All told, there has been a total debating time in Committee on these two Bills of two and a half hours. We have no time to debate either Bill on Report, and we have a guillotine motion to drive both Bills through this afternoon.
  I start from the principle enunciated by a great parliamentarian, who said:
  All guillotines are an affront.…
  Guillotines, surely, represent a failure of the parliamentary process. They imply that the House has neither the disposition nor the time to deal properly with the matters in hand. They also render impossible the main function of the House, which is to scrutinise legislation properly; and they deny Back Benchers, in particular, an opportunity to give their attention to it. I suspect that they also imply the existence of an excess of legislation.
  Goodness me, we have heard a lot about that this afternoon. He went on:
  The fact that a guillotine needs to be introduced at any stage of the parliamentary Session suggests that the Government are putting too much legislation before the House, and the House feels that it is not being given proper time to deal with it.—[Official Report, 9 May 2000; Vol. 349, c. 663.]
  Those wise words were spoken not in the 19th century in the Irish debate, not in 1945 during the Attlee Government, but on 9 May by the parliamentarian of the year, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). That gives them extra gravitas.
  We also heard the wise words of the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). Labour Members may dismiss what I say or what my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) said

  703
  with his usual eloquence—even more so today. He made some telling and powerful points—and not just those in my defence or in defence of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst.
  The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) described us as "marauders", but Labour Members cannot dismiss the wise words of the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich. It is not as if she has just come to the views that she now espouses. I can remember being in government as a junior Minister sitting on the Government Benches and cowering behind our Leader of the House as a guillotine motion was advanced to close a Bill with one day's debate having spent 130 hours in Committee. I can also recall when, as a junior Whip, I went to the then Leader of the House, Lord Wakeham as he now is. I do not tell tales of the Whips Office—never have and never will—and I do not think that this is telling tales out of school. I said, "We are bogged down upstairs. Members are keeping us going on Scottish legislation. We need a guillotine." He said, "Come back when you have done 130 hours. We will talk about it then."
  Just 10 years ago, there was no question of the Government having the gall, the effrontery or the arrogance to come to the Dispatch Box and to put a guillotine motion before the House until we had done at least 100 hours in Committee upstairs, with the prospect of doing another 100, still not being past clause 6 and still being bogged down in Committee. There would have been no question of coming before the House with a guillotine motion on Report when we had not even had the Report stage of a Bill.
  Again, I have sat on the Government Benches as the then Government defended themselves at the Dispatch Box from attack after attack by Labour Members, including the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich who has consistently attacked guillotines that she considers excessive and act too quickly or peremptorily. I remember sitting on the Government Benches as we advocated a guillotine to give six hours, 10 hours or two days to the remaining stages of Bills when we had already spent days bogged down on Report. Those were the days when we were kept up all night. Some research is called for. I shall commission it shortly at the end of the debate.
  Mr. David Taylor: The right hon. Gentleman is recalling his experiences when he was on the Government Benches. Would he care to confirm my own research on the number of guillotined Bills? In 1987–88 it was six, in 1988–89 it was 10, and in 1989–90 it was 4, making a total of 20. That was the number three years after the June 1987 election, compared with 15 at this point in the current Parliament. Does he agree that the Government whom he supported were even more enthusiastic users of the guillotine, which he now criticises the present Government for using?
  Mr. Maclean: The hon. Gentleman's statistics are entirely wrong, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) has already explained. It is not just the number of guillotines that count—we have heard that the Government have guillotined about 50 Bills—but at what point in the process the Government use the most draconian method of curtailing debate available to them.
  704
  Of course, one can defend the use of a guillotine in certain circumstances. I listened with incredulity—no, I was not incredulous. It was the usual speech that the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) makes before he bolts from the Chamber. We shall no doubt hear him make the same point in the debate on the next guillotine motion.
  The hon. Gentleman went on and on about a Government not being able to tolerate sitting here night after night, hour after hour, debating the same measure. He said that the right of the majority must be respected, and that the Government must have the right to impose a guillotine after all that time. He missed the fundamental point. These Bills have had two and a half hours' debate at most, by probably, at most, 30 Members of Parliament upstairs. Another 630 of us have not had a chance to consider one iota of them on Report.
  Mr. Forth: My right hon. Friend has just repeated the assertion that has been made a number of times during the debate—that the House repeatedly sits all through the night. My memory suggests that, in the three years of the current Parliament, the House has sat all through the night two or three times, but it is no more than that. Will he confirm that fact? Does he not believe that a mythology is arising? More often than not, the House now finishes at 10 o'clock and almost never sits through the night.
  Mr. Maclean: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. I was going to come on to that point—it is in the part of my speech entitled "The myth of sitting through the night". We have heard hon. Members talk about it. There was a point during my 17 years in the House—it was in the mid-1980s—when all-night sittings were fairly common. When one did two in a row, that was tough going. No doubt two all-night sittings in a row, or going until midnight on the second night, tired Ministers, Whips and all those participating.
  I am not saying that that was the best way of passing parliamentary business, or that we were at our freshest and best. I am not defending that way of proceeding. However, we must puncture the illusion—which has been quoted by too many people who want excuses to take away hon. Members' rights—that we are sitting all night, all the time. It just does not happen any more.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: Does my right hon. Friend realise that the mid-1980s pale into insignificance compared with the early 1970s, when night after night—especially in our consideration of the Industrial Relations Act 1971; I did not miss a single sitting—we were kept up by skilful Labour Members, who—although, in my view, misguidedly—absolutely properly used all the instruments available to them to delay what they considered to be inappropriate and obnoxious legislation?
  Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He also has a more glorious record of sitting long hours than I have, as I was elected to the House in the 1980s. His intervention is relevant to this guillotine motion. One of the reasons given by Labour Members for seeking to curtail debate is that we must prevent all-night debates, because we have wasted so much time on them that they have been bad for legislation. In this Parliament, however, we have had barely any all-night sittings. Moreover, although we have not even started to consider on Report

  705
  the Nuclear Safeguards Bill and the Sea Fishing Grants (Charges) Bill, the Government have already moved to guillotine debate on them.
  I could understand the Government moving a guillotine motion on the Bills if, having ploughed on with debate on them until 2 am or 3 am, the Government decided that they could not get the legislation by continuing debate for another hour or so, and that it would be better to give up and to come back on another day with a guillotine. We have not even started debating the Bills on Report, but the Government are introducing the draconian instrument of the guillotine. One of their excuses for doing so is that they do not want the House sitting up all night.
  Mr. Bercow: I do not want to deflect my right hon. Friend from the thrust of his argument, but will he take this opportunity to rebut the dangerous argument made by the hon. Member for Upminster (Mr. Darvill), who suggested that precisely because a Bill had been considered so briefly in Committee, that in itself justified minimal attention being given to it by the House on Report? Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe recently used a similar argument in relation to another Bill, saying that she would not give way to me because I had not been on the Committee? Does he agree that it is essential to understand that Bills are reported to the House so that all hon. Members are able thoroughly to debate their contents?
  Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That illustration also portrays one of the frightening attitudes of some Labour Members, who believe that opposition to the Government is blasphemous. One can detect that attitude whenever any criticism is made of the Prime Minister. The Government's attitude is essentially one of, "But you cannot oppose us—we are right. You should not talk against the Bill—it is right. We are doing it—it must be right." That attitude is creeping into so many spheres.
  The Government's attitude seems to be that because legislation has been considered in Committee, that should be it—it is good enough. They seem to think that we should not consider legislation at all on Report, because they gave it some time in Committee, where another noble bunch of Members of Parliament considered it. They seem to be asking what on earth we are doing trying to consider it in the Chamber.
  Conversely, I have heard some Ministers suggest that it is outrageous for Opposition Members to table amendments on Report, because we were not on the Committee and did not raise the issues there. I have not heard that said by the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office, who has been handed the poisoned chalice today. He is a nice, decent and honourable man, told to do a dirty job that should have been done by the Leader of the House. It is an outrageous contempt that the right hon. Lady is not here in person to face the House and justify the motion.
  The Government, however, cannot have it both ways. If they want to gag us, they should be brutal enough to say that they do not like opposition per se. They should have the guts to say whether they believe that it is blasphemous, irrational or not to be tolerated for
  706
  Opposition Members—or Labour Members—to pop up and say that the Government may be wrong. They should not produce the type of guillotine motion that we are now debating. It is intended drastically to curtail debate on Bills that the House has not had a chance to debate or to run, to see how they might turn out.
  Mr. David Taylor: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way again. A few moments ago, I attempted to roll back the calendar a decade to look at the experience of the first three years of the Government elected in June 1987, led by Lady Thatcher, of which the right hon. Gentleman was a member. The figures show that 20 Bills were guillotined in that period—making use of a tool that the right hon. Gentleman has described as a draconian instrument used by all-powerful Governments who arrogantly tread all over their Back Benchers and the Opposition. How many of those 20 guillotine motions did the right hon. Gentleman vote for?
  Mr. Maclean: I sincerely hope that I voted for all of them if I was serving in the Government. If the hon. Gentleman has tried to do some research, he should tell us how many times Lady Thatcher or members of her Government argued for a guillotine after only one and a half hours of debate in Committee. If any Tory Minister had tried that, there would have been outrage from the Labour party and the media, who at that time considered it their fundamental duty to join the Opposition in opposing the Tory Government, because they thought that Lady Thatcher's 120 majority was too big and was bad for democracy. Now we have a Government with a majority of 180 driving through what they like with the media licking their boots—I choose boots as a safer and more advisable part of the anatomy.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: I wonder whether my right hon. Friend recalls the many late-night and all-night sittings that we had in the late 1980s and the excitement that ran through the Chamber at about 4 o'clock in the morning when, while we were feeling extremely weary, in through the door behind the Speaker's Chair appeared the Prime Minister, without a hair out of place and looking as bright as a button. How many times has my right hon. Friend seen the present Prime Minister in the Chamber when the House has been sitting late at night? Let us hope that he will be kept up late at night now.
  Mr. Maclean: I should not care to speculate on matters that might be out of order, but in relation to the motion, it will be interesting to see whether the Prime Minister turns up. His Government appear to consider the four Bills under discussion today to be so vital that they must have these draconian motions, so I assume that if the Prime Minister can tear himself away from his family duties today, he might be able to pop through the voting Lobbies for a few minutes. When we had all-night sittings in the 1980s, one would always see the then Prime Minister participating, just as one always saw the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and Bob Cryer going through the Opposition Lobbies, because they were the ones who had kept us here most of the day and night, doing their important parliamentary duty of scrutinising all legislation properly and in detail and trying to find flaws in it.
  Mr. Bercow: My right hon. Friend will be aware that I missed the intoxicating excitements of the 1980s and

  707
  early 1990s to which my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) referred, because, as I am happy to concede and the House will be aware, I am a parliamentary virgin. Does my right hon. Friend agree that one reason why it is essential that we should debate the Report and Third Readings of the Bills before us today in particular detail is that, if anything, in the past three years the Opposition have debated for too few hours in the House, not too many?
  Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend is right. If he studies the time that the House has sat, he will see that, given the number of Bills and measures that we have considered, the number of hours allocated to debate has declined considerably since the new Government came to power.
  My hon. Friend has made another confession. I was in the House a few months ago when he came out and confessed that he was heterosexual. We have heard today that he is a parliamentary virgin. However, there is still time left in this parliamentary Session for my hon. Friend to lose his parliamentary virginity in whatever way he thinks appropriate.
  The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) said that he would support the Conservative party in opposing the motions. He suggested that my right hon. and hon. Friends' scrutiny of legislation was like the monkeys who, with lots of typewriters and enough years, would doubtless write a Shakespeare play. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman did not intend that to be derogatory, but I took slight umbrage at that.
  Amendments tabled to many Bills by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst and I—particularly on Fridays—have, on most occasions, been accepted by the Government. Hardly a Friday goes past without a Minister agreeing at the Dispatch Box that an amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend or myself has merit. Ministers say that the Government will consider it and, perhaps, adopt it in another place. I will not embarrass the Ministers concerned by quoting their words about some of the amendments that we have tabled—amendments which Labour Members have described as wasting time or filibustering. On nearly all of those occasions, the Government have accepted that our amendments were valid.
  I have tabled some amendments on the Order Paper today, some of which have been selected by Madam Speaker. I assume that they are in order and that the Chair does not regard them as utterly irrelevant. Over the past few years, I have been fortunate in having many amendments selected for debate. In drafting them, I have often thought that the Government would dislike them, that the amendments would get nowhere and that it could be a waste of time. However, I have persisted because I believe that it is our duty as parliamentarians to scrutinise legislation and draft amendments.
  With regard to the Nuclear Safeguards Bill, my new clauses were an attempt to address the problems of entry and the powers of arrest and give foreign inspectors certain rights to go into people's homes. I thought that I could address some of the concerns, and I tabled amendments which have been selected. For someone to suggest—as the hon. Member for Walsall, North did—that we are wasting time by drafting irrelevant amendments is an affront to the whole purpose of Parliament, which is to scrutinise legislation, and an insult to the Chair.
  708
  When I have strayed out of order, the Chair has pulled me up; severely, on some occasions. I make no complaint about that; it is the duty of the occupant of the Chair. However, we can say that all my other remarks on these occasions were in order and that there was no wasting time. In last week's debate on the Royal Parks (Trading) Bill, the Minister welcomed some of our amendments and suggested that we had conducted the debate properly, efficiently and courteously. He said that there was some merit in our arguments. He then convinced us that his approach was better and we withdrew the amendments.
  If we had wanted to waste some time, we would have forced a vote on the amendments, and that would have been even more embarrassing for the Government because they had given their Back Benchers the night off. That was at only 7 o'clock in the evening. If the Government cannot keep their Members here at 7 o'clock, there is not much hope of them being here on a Friday between 9 and 2, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst vainly hopes.
  Why are we considering this motion today? I can only assume that the Government have got frit and lost their nerve. We face a massive amount of legislation, because the Government have overloaded their legislative programme. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North was right to question the Government's priorities. Some chap from London wrote to me recently to say that the Royal Parks (Trading) Bill was vitally important and that I must, in no circumstances, speak against it. He wanted the powers to drive out the smelly hamburger sellers within days. I could respond only by saying that I am just one Member of Parliament. If the Government think that the issue is so important, they should adopt it as a programme Bill and get it through that way. However, the hon. Gentleman questioned the wisdom of the Government in selecting measures that he considers not to be of earth-shattering importance. He told the House today that some measures in the Government's programme are sufficiently important to fight about that we could sit up all night debating them.
  Mr. Doug Henderson: The right hon. Gentleman has drawn conclusions from what I said and claimed that I said something that I did not say. I said that the House needed reform and should draw a distinction between important and less important legislation. I did not say that any of the legislation before us today was not important. I actually said that the House must consider effective ways to deal with the issue.
  Mr. Maclean: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's clarification, but in his next breath, or in his next sentence, he mentioned the Royal Parks (Trading) Bill, and he seemed to minimise its importance by referring to ice-cream sellers. He dismissed ice-cream sellers in royal parks, and I took it that he was using that Bill as an example of a measure that he did not consider as important as other legislation.
  I cannot make such distinctions. The Government lay out their legislative programme and the Royal Parks (Trading) Bill is a Government Bill. Therefore, I expect it to get the sort of scrutiny that a Government Bill should get. It should not be bounced through on the nod on a Friday, which is a bad way to make legislation. It should not be bounced through after one hour and 10 minutes in

  709
  Committee. The Government should not then claim that it has been debated by 18 or 24 Members in Committee and that we should just let it through. That is not the proper way to make legislation and that is not doing our duty as parliamentarians.
  Mr. Bercow: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there should be some consistency in the statements from Labour Members? If they wish the job of a Member of Parliament more closely to resemble that of almost anybody else, in the private or public sector, they should answer the question that would be on the lips of many millions of members of the public why the House does not sit for approximately 20 weeks of the year. If they defend that arrangement and continue to want the House to consider the quantity of legislation that it currently considers, they have to accept that many more late nights will be required.
  Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend makes a valid point, which brings me to the comments made recently by the hon. Member for Gloucester (Ms Kingham). There were many new Members after the election and I do not recognise all of them, but I confess that today was the first time I have ever seen the hon. Lady. On Fridays, I have the pleasure of contesting with some very able—I am not being patronising—hon. Ladies on the other side who have driven through legislation and are often here participating in debate, giving myself and my hon. Friends a tough time of it. I can only assume, given that some hon. Ladies on the Government Benches are able to cope, that the hon. Member for Gloucester was looking for an excuse when she decided to make her comments at the weekend about leaving Parliament.
  If the hon. Member for Gloucester wants the House to operate from nine to five, or to work a shorter week, or to finish earlier at night—not that it goes on as long as it used to—she must accept the 48-week year worked by most people outside the House. Hon. Members have constituency engagements in recesses, but Parliament cannot have both a nine-to-five working day and a 30-week year. Something has to give, and that something is scrutiny of legislation. The Government have overloaded the legislative programme. They should not complain when some parts of the programme receive more scrutiny than they would wish.
  It is not the Minister's fault that the Government have got into this problem with the four Bills before the House today. The Minister is decent and honourable, but he is not in the driving seat of the programme. The Government's business managers, the Cabinet Ministers and the Chief Whip are in the driving seat, and they are the ones who have got the Government into this muddle. They have added these Bills to the programme without considering that there might be opposition to them, or that hon. Members might want to debate them.
  It was assumed that no one cared about the Bills and would not oppose them. It was assumed that they could be bounced through Committee and Report—although the Sea Fishing Grants (Charges) Bill will not have a Report stage at all.
  Mr. Forth: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the problem is even worse than he suggests? All the Bills
  710
  contain controversial proposals, such as increased police powers, powers of entry to private premises, retrospectivity, and the possibility that private information might be divulged by the Department of Social Security or the BBC. Surely no one can suggest, therefore, that they can be nodded through without thorough scrutiny?
  Mr. Maclean: My right hon. Friend is right, but I did not suggest that the Bills were unimportant and non-controversial. That is what the Government's business managers or their advisers think, and they have got it seriously wrong. After all, the Government have tabled a new clause to the Television Licences (Disclosure of Information) Bill. They will drive it through later tonight, but I hope that Conservative Members are not accused of giving unnecessary scrutiny to an innocuous little Bill that everyone supports.
  Mr. Bercow: Given the concerns once more expressed by Conservative Members about these important Bills, and assuming that the Leader of the House will be voting tonight, would not it be a courtesy for the Minister to say whether she will move the second allocation of time motion?
  Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend is right. There is time to get a message to the Leader of the House that she should return to the courtesies of the House by moving the next guillotine motion. I cannot recall a junior Minister being given that task, but the fact that Cabinet Ministers no longer make all statements to the House diminishes the House's status and importance. In the past, Cabinet Ministers opened important debates, but Ministers of State now do that—a practice that would have driven the Labour party in opposition mental. It is all a plan to diminish the importance of the House, and to remove the need for Cabinet Ministers to justify their actions to Parliament. The Prime Minister does not do that, so why should the rest of the Cabinet?
  I shall begin to draw my remarks to a conclusion, as I know that other Conservative Members want to contribute to the debate. I have missed out most of my main arguments in principle, but there will be another opportunity to, make them later.
  I turn now to the Sea Fishing Grants (Charges) Bill. No amendments have been tabled to that Bill, but the Government have guillotined debate on it. I appreciate that with a good brief, a fair wind and remarkable—almost incredible—tolerance from the Chair, it might be possible for some people to speak for 30 minutes on the Third Reading of that Bill.
  I doubt that any occupant of the Chair would tolerate longer speeches on that measure, however. If hon. Members tried to speak for longer on that little Bill, the Government could move a closure motion. I do not presume to predict what the Chair might do, but I guess that it would grant a pretty rapid closure motion—even though the Bill was not amended in Committee and has been debated for only one hour and 12 minutes.
  The Government are not prepared to accept even that. They have proposed a motion to guillotine debate on the Sea Fishing Grants (Charges) Bill, even though we lack the opportunity to debate that little Bill all night in any case. The hon. Member for Walsall, North should recognise that the mechanism to allow us to spend all

  711
  night on that Bill does not exist. No amendments have been selected for that Bill, so there are not the half a dozen groups of amendments that would allow us to attempt to talk for ages. However, the Government have guillotined debate anyway.
  The Nuclear Safeguards Bill has been allocated the same amount of time—one hour—as the Sea Fishing Grants (Charges) Bill, even though there are five groups of amendments to debate. Two of those groups—concerning powers of entry, access and search, and restrictions on disclosure of information—are very important. The first group was discussed in Committee in another place, and it exercised that Committee greatly.
  Mr. Forth: Last week, the Leader of the House implied that the Bills were inconsequential and uncontroversial and that they therefore need not detain the House for long. The Minister said the same today, but Madam Speaker has selected for debate three new clauses and 29 amendments to the Nuclear Safeguards Bill. Does not that suggest that Madam Speaker agrees that the Bill is worth a great deal of the House's attention and time? Does my right hon. Friend know the answer to that apparent conundrum?
  Mr. Maclean: The answer is straightforward: the Government are trying to advance arguments that they know are wrong. That is why the Minister wisely curtailed his remarks today. He spoke as gently and apologetically as he could in his attempt to justify this appalling guillotine motion. He could not rant and rave, justifying the motion against an Opposition baying for blood. He knew that there was no justification for the motion. That is why he adopted the approach of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who goes round the country saying to farmers, "I know you're all going out of business, and it is terrible, but I am a nice chap, so don't criticise me." The right hon. Gentleman gets away with it—for the moment. That is a skill that one admires. Similarly, the Home Secretary comes before the House to say that something else has gone wrong in the Home Office but as he is a good, decent guy, no one wants to land a punch on him—although my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) is getting a taste for it.
  I understand why the Minister adopted that low-key approach to the guillotine—not wanting to announce it, saying that it did not really merit one, but that it had to be done because of all the loose ends, and it was pretty ghastly. That is a feeble excuse for imposing a guillotine. The Minister knows it, and he got away without having a baying mob attack him at the Dispatch Box only because of his reputation for being an honest, decent man. To borrow an analogy from the Liberal Benches, he is the monkey—in the nicest possible sense—who has to be at the Dispatch Box today. The organ grinder has wisely stayed hidden away in a room. The monkey has been produced to grind the organ, appease the House and take the blame for this discreditable and disreputable draconian guillotine.
  Mr. Forth: In spite of what my right hon. Friend has said, does he agree that if the Minister, when he has the opportunity to reply to the debate, can give us further
  712
  views and a proper reply, rather than the apologetic and low-key remarks with which he introduced the debate, that might be very useful?
  Mr. Maclean: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. I take that as a reminder that there are only 41 minutes of the debate left. Having made some of the points on principle on the guillotine motion that I wished to make, I am happy to conclude my remarks, conscious that others wish to speak and that we need the Minister's reply.
  6.2 pm
  Mr. Keith Darvill: The debate has covered a number of matters. Conservative Members have displayed so-called outrage, which I consider to be synthetic. A number of right hon. and hon. Members have also spoken about the reform of the Chamber and the way in which we do our business. I do not want to speak about that in my brief contribution, but I think it relevant, when we debate a motion such as this, to discuss how we could better carry out the business of the House.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way so early in his speech. I should like to challenge him on one point. I think that he should reflect on his suggestion that the sense of offence felt by Conservative Members is synthetic. It is not synthetic at all. There is a very strong feeling on this side of the House, which was echoed on the Government Benches in the speech of the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), that Parliament is increasingly held in contempt by Government.
  Mr. Darvill: If the hon. Gentleman had let me continue a little further, he would have seen that I will soon be getting round to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). I will come to the point about synthetic outrage in a moment, if the hon. Gentleman will permit me.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich talked about the role of Back Benchers. I am not blindly following the Government's line on the motion; I am considering it purely as a Back Bencher. I am interested in the question of balance, mentioned by the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack)—the balance between the legislation that we are considering at any particular time and the amount of time that the House grants to it. That is the basis on which I have considered the timetable motion before us, and I think that it does deserve the support of the House.
  I have listened to a number of such debates in this Parliament, and some genuine points have been made about cutting the time that we spend on debates, which should clearly be challenged by the Opposition. However, we need to look at the issues that we are debating and how to allocate our time for the entire legislative programme.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. Timetables were introduced for the first time because of Irish business when, for four months, the House of Commons had debated nothing but Irish legislation. It is rather different from the matters that we are talking about tonight.
  Mr. Darvill: I agree that it is. I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that we need to look at every piece of

  713
  legislation and the time that we spend on it. If the House had been debating a piece of legislation for four months and that was deemed to be too long, it must have come to a decision to cut short the debate.
  The Sea Fishing Grants (Charges) Bill obtained support from all parties in the House. It closes a loophole in the law. The Second Reading debate was wide ranging; the debates in Committee were quite detailed; and the amendments which were tabled—I do not think that they were selected—would not have changed the purpose of the Bill significantly. The amount of time spent debating that piece of legislation could well have been adequate with a short timetable.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: To echo the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), why, in the name of goodness, are the Government seeking to guillotine a Bill when there is no Report stage because no amendments have been tabled and when, by common consent, it would receive a brief, expeditious and sensible Third reading? Why take a sledgehammer to this Bill?
  Mr. Darvill: That is a fair point. In the time allocated to both pieces of legislation, there is sufficient time within the timetable motion to discuss that. It seems perfectly reasonable.
  I made the point earlier about the number of amendments tabled in Committee, and the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) made a specific point about it. My point was that when Back-Bench Members are considering the controversy of a Bill and the issues that it contains, they should look at how that Bill was debated in Committee. That is not to restrict Back-Bench Members in tabling amendments, but, in coming to a balanced view on the time that we give to legislation, one factor to consider—although not the only one—is the way in which a Bill was dealt with in Committee.
  Mr. Bercow: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that another factor to consider is the number of new clauses and amendments tabled on Report—32 in this case. Will the hon. Gentleman at least be guided by precedent in the debate, and give the House an example, with specifics, of a situation between 1979 and 1997 when a Bill that had a truncated Second Reading and was debated in Committee for only 1 hour and 12 minutes was nevertheless thought appropriate for the imposition of a guillotine?
  Mr. Darvill: No, of course I cannot give the hon. Gentleman an answer to that question. One would need to analyse the debates that took place over that period.
  The two Bills before us are uncontroversial in the view of the majority of Members of the House. All those who have contributed to the debate have signified support for them, certainly in Committee. Despite some opposition from individual Members, these two Bills have received support from all parties.
  Mr. Paterson: We are discussing a Bill under which a person who contravenes its provisions when it is enacted will go to jail for up to two years or have imposed on him
  714
  an unlimited fine if he goes before a jury. Does the hon. Gentleman think that that is uncontroversial? Is not our first role to come here to defend the liberties of our constituents and to ensure that legislation is properly considered, in great detail, before casting them upon the whims of a jury?
  Mr. Darvill: That is absolutely right. It is a question of the time that we allocate to that process. Many Bills that pass through the House have provisions of the sort that the hon. Gentleman has described. Such issues have not been ignored during our debates. Time has been given to them. They were considered on Second Reading, they were debated in Committee and they will be debated this evening.
  Mr. Bercow: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He is being characteristically courteous.
  Let us move the debate on from generalities, in which the hon. Gentleman is indulging, to specifics. He will have heard me say earlier that the hon. Member for Gloucester (Ms Kingham) was content with only seven and a half minutes of debate on each new clause and amendment, and that was assuming that there would be no Divisions, which was a rather improbable scenario. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that seven and a half minutes per new clause and amendment is wholly inadequate consideration? If he does, will he put a figure on what he thinks would be a more appropriate allocation of time?
  Mr. Darvill: The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that the amendments would be grouped and discussed on that basis. There would not have been seven and a half minutes' consideration per new clause and amendment. Such an analysis can be used to discredit any allocation of time motion. The overall time allowed would have been sufficient if we had moved on to the new clauses and amendments sooner.
  Mr. Fabricant: The hon. Gentleman rightly says that the time available to discuss the amendments and new clauses has been attenuated. I suspect that we shall be left with one hour to discuss the Nuclear Safeguards Bill. It contains 32 clauses, which means that we shall have less than two minutes to consider each one of them, and that is assuming that there are no Divisions. Even if we take the amendments as five groups and consider them on that basis, we shall have only five minutes per—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. Some interventions, and not only the hon. Gentleman's, have been overlong. Make them brief in future.
  Mr. Darvill: I think that I answered the point made by the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) when I responded earlier to the intervention of the hon. Member for Buckingham.
  Mr. Paul Keetch: We supported the Bill on Second Reading and in Committee, and we supported the closure motion. The debate has moved on and the Bill is next to be considered on Report. However, does the hon. Gentleman accept that there is a great difference between the Government wanting legitimately to get their

  715
  legislative programme through the House, including Bills that have cross-party support, and introducing four guillotine motions in one day?
  Mr. Darvill: First, we are debating guillotine motions on two Bills. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman was a member of the Committee that considered the Bill. He had the opportunity between Second Reading and consideration in Committee to table amendments that reflected his and his party's point of view. I note that there was only about one hour and 17 minutes of debate. A factor that I am taking into account in establishing whether we are achieving the right balance and providing the right time for debate in the Chamber is whether the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues tabled any amendments in Committee. Had they done so, had they spent a significant amount of time debating them and had they analysed key issues, those opposing the motion would have a much stronger argument to advance.
  Mr. Winnick: Is it not a fact that there are 32 amendments and three new clauses to consider when we come to the Nuclear Safeguards Bill? Without the motion, we would not complete consideration on Report this evening unless the Government decided to let the debate proceed until a late hour. At most, we would have completed consideration of the one Bill. It is more than likely that that process would have been completed at 3 am, 4 am or 5 am. Many amendments would not have been debated. That is the only alternative to the motion that is before us.
  Mr. Darvill: As ever, my hon. Friend, who has much more experience in the House than I, makes an extremely good point.
  It is regrettable that the number of guillotine motions introduced by Governments is increasing. That is partly because of the weight of legislation. That must be acknowledged. Increasingly, Governments have large programmes of legislation because there is a demand from society for that. That should be reflected in the way in which we deal with our business. We must establish the right balance when determining the time that we can devote to legislation and how Members can cope with that in terms of their parliamentary and personal lives. Against that background, I am in favour of more timetable motions. Provided that we have the appropriate safeguards, that is the way forward. I shall support the motion.
  6.15 pm
  Mr. Donald Gorrie: I thank the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) for restoring my faith in democracy, which was being sat on by various heavy quarters in various places. It was an admirable speech.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) was criticised by the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) and by the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) on various parts of his speech. I understood that my hon. Friend was making it clear that Liberal Democrats oppose the motion. However, he was adopting the sound attitude of Voltaire, pointing out that he disagreed with many of the arguments of Conservative Members but fully supporting their right to advance them. He added that
  716
  sometimes they produced good amendments that deserved support, but often there is filibustering, irrelevant debate and general time wasting, which most people think brings Parliament into disrepute. He was supporting the Opposition's right to oppose guillotine motions and saying that the Government should not impose them.
  I strongly agree with my hon. Friend that we must consider Parliament's procedures and the way that we run our democracy. It is clear that Parliament is failing in its duties to hold the Executive to account and adequately to scrutinise Bills. To the dismay of Conservative Members, my hon. Friend said that a decent voting system would greatly diminish the power of the Executive. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) similarly said that Parliament must review its procedures in order to do things better. He argued that there are better ways of holding the Government to account than ambushes late at night and filibusters, for example.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must be careful. The Chair would never allow filibustering.
  Mr. Gorrie: I stand corrected, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise.
  Mr. Paterson: The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) made it clear that Liberal Democrats oppose the motion. When I asked what their answer was, the answer was about as satisfactory as chewing cardboard. Will the hon. Gentleman explain what methods the Liberal Democrats would propose?
  Mr. Gorrie: My hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove found that he was being led into a long disquisition on subjects not really relevant to the debate. I may receive another deserved rebuke from you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I take them up. My hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) have put forward proposals to the Modernisation Committee, some of which would meet the point made by the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson).
  Mr. Stunell: Bearing in mind that there will be a second debate on guillotine motions, there may be an opportunity to colour in the picture that I sketched earlier.
  Mr. Gorrie: I look forward to enjoying my hon. Friend's impressionistic skills.
  My main point—a fresh, if, perhaps, a cheeky, one—is that, as a Member of another, much newer Parliament, I know that it learns from this Parliament, and bad habits are easier to copy than good ones. The Government treat this Parliament with a good deal of disdain, and Parliament does not adequately check that Government. Those facts set a tone that the Parliament in Edinburgh is tending to copy. We ought to scrutinise the Government properly to encourage newer and younger parliaments to do the same. We owe it to others to set the House in order by scrutinising the Government properly and by stopping these ridiculous guillotines.
  6.20 pm
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: I, too, pay tribute to the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) for an outstanding speech, which

  717
  demonstrated the distilled wisdom of an hon. Lady who has been an active participant in the House for a great many years. Without wishing to embarrass her, I hope that her speech will become compulsory reading for all new Members. She demonstrated her wide and sensible understanding of how the House operates, and she reflected exactly what is so important about Parliament.
  This institution is under fire. Its powers are haemorrhaging away, and I use that word deliberately. They are haemorrhaging to the European Union, the constituent parts of the United Kingdom—to Scotland and to Wales—and, come 1 October, even more greatly to the courts. For that reason, this debate is timely. We ought to oppose the guillotine, and should debate some of the wider issues at stake, as you are allowing us to do, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  I was a Member in the 1980s, and I recall sitting up all night. I loathed it, and I thought that it was a stupid way to operate. I had not been here long when I arrived home at 3 am or 4 am once, only for my then young daughter—who now works a few yards from here—to jump on me at 7 am. I said, "Emily, go away, daddy is very tired." She answered, "Daddy, do you know what MP stands for?" I said, "No." She said, "It stands for Mouldy Person."
  It can be difficult to combine life in this place with family life. However, it was important in the 1980s fully to debate the matters that were discussed. The Opposition were rightly given every opportunity to oppose a Government with a majority of 140, of which I was happy to be one. There was then far greater opposition to the Government—by Bob Cryer, then the hon. Member for Keighley, and by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). Every night, there would be a 45-minute debate on the money resolution. Good luck to them. I was an idiot to believe the Whips who told me that I had to be here. I should have gone home long before I did.
  The House does itself a disservice in the manner in which all Governments deal with the Committee stage of Bills. Virtually no amendment introduced in Committee by an Opposition Member can possibly be accepted by the Government of the day. It will be dismissed as defective, as striking at the heart of the Bill or destroying the Bill. Then, however, we come to Report, and the Bill requires 300 or 400 Government amendments. That tends to lower the esteem of the House in the eyes of the public. Governments—Tory, Labour or whatever—would do themselves much good by accepting that a Bill can be improved by the Opposition.
  On how we facilitate opposition to legislation, I cannot see a way around our existing rules, save at the expense of reducing yet further the powers of the Opposition to oppose. The Government of the day have a huge raft of powers and levers that enable them to dragoon their people into their Lobby. Not least is the power of patronage. If Members do not do as the Government say, they will not have the benefit of a magnificent office as parliamentary private secretary to the Under-Secretary of State for Pensions or whatever illustrious office it may be.
  Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that reducing the hours of this
  718
  place would lead to even greater problems because of the occasional inability of Governments to listen to common sense?
  Mr. Howarth: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that. He is entirely right.
  I have some sympathy with the hon. Member for Gloucester (Ms Kingham), who has taken the trouble to come to the Chamber this evening, although I did not have the opportunity to hear what she had to say. I read what she had to say over the weekend, and I agree that it is difficult to combine membership of the House with bringing up children.
  Ms Kingham: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Howarth: In a moment. I am somewhat old-fashioned, and I believe that bringing up children is an extremely responsible job. One of the great contributions that women make to the continuation of society is the exercise of that responsibility. I recognise that it is hard to combine that job with being a Member of Parliament.
  Ms Kingham rose—
  Mr. Howarth: Before the hon. Lady intervenes, let me also tell her that my right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Thatcher, for whom I had the privilege of being parliamentary private secretary for about six months, managed to combine both things. So does Nicola Horlick, who earns a great deal more than we do. In the City, she combines a demanding job with bringing up, I believe, five children.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are straying away from the motion before us. The hours of work in the House are being considered by the Select Committee on the Modernisation of the House of Commons.
  Ms Kingham: I should like to knock one inaccuracy on the head. I have no difficulty in combining my domestic arrangements with my work. My husband is at home looking after my children; in the same way, male Members of Parliament have left their wives at home with their children for many years. I have been criticising the long hours that we spend in this Chamber that are not worth while and in which we do not debate issues of substance that affect our constituents. I have no objection to working long hours; I have always done so. Nor do most of my hon. Friends have any such objection. There is no problem concerning my combining my family with working practices. I do not find that difficult at all.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: On that note, therefore, and as we know what the hon. Lady's thinking is, may we return to the motion before us?
  Mr. Howarth: I could not agree more, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You are wise to draw to our attention the need to return to the heart of the matter. I would say only that I do not recall having seen the hon. Lady in the Committee on the Nuclear Safeguards Bill on 10 April. I was rudely interrupted then by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy)—the Government's pairing Whip—who moved the closure, but my last words

  719
  were "extensive powers". As my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) made clear, the Bill contains powers that have been described outside Parliament as draconian.
  My hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) pointed out that it is our duty to scrutinise legislation to ensure that, if we are conferring draconian powers on officials, we do so with the full understanding that, first, those powers are necessary; and, secondly, there are adequate mechanisms to safeguard them so that they are not abused.
  Before I was interrupted on 10 April, I was saying that the powers in the Bill are extensive. Clause 5(4) states:
  An authorised officer may accompany an Agency inspector while he is exercising powers under this section.
  That inspector is an official of a foreign agency—not necessarily a UK national—empowered, without a warrant, to enter a private company in the UK. An authorised officer of the Secretary of State "may accompany" the inspector—in other words, he does not need to do so.
  The guillotine motion is unnecessary and wrong because the Bill is important and the House has not had an adequate opportunity to discuss it.
  6.31 pm
  Sir Patrick Cormack: By leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is terribly important that there is a ministerial winding-up to this important debate.
  I draw the Minister's attention, yet again, to three matters; at the very least, I ask him to address them. First, will he explain why the Government have imposed a guillotine before Report on one Bill and when there will be no Report on the other, because no amendments have been tabled? If ever there was a case of premature overreaction, this is it. In his opening remarks, the Minister did not begin to address that matter. We have seen a Government reacting in pique, annoyance and petulance because some parliamentarians take their duties seriously. The Minister must deal with that point.
  Secondly, the Minister must address the underlying issue—the context of the debate. Apart from the fact that the Government are piqued and petulant, why have they been driven to this expedient? It is because they have overloaded Parliament with legislation. It was noticeable that even the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson), who has now left the Chamber, spoke of the need to introduce only a few pieces of legislation. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) and I shared a smile when the hon. Gentleman said that we should have only three or four pieces of legislation, but then argued for a timetable. If there were only a few measures, we should have to consider that argument seriously. The Minister did not begin to address that matter.
  Thirdly, I direct the Minister to the most important contribution to the debate. It was not the vastly entertaining speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), although it was a splendid parliamentary exercise; nor was it the many pertinent interventions made by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) who made the most extraordinary admission. His maiden speech was itself—to use a famous phrase—a brazen hussy of a speech. However, he now says that he is a parliamentary virgin—good gracious me, I have never heard such a confession.
  720
  The most important speech was made by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). In 10 minutes, she encapsulated what Parliament should be about. She speaks from many years' experience of the House, and as one of the most distinguished members of the Chairmen's Panel. She pointed out to the Minister that a usurpation of Parliament's democratic position is implicit in such a motion. I want to hear what he has to say about that.
  6.35 pm
  Mr. Tipping: First, it would be churlish of me not to acknowledge the bouquets and brickbats that have been thrown at me across the Chamber. The debate has been interesting; its importance has become ever more apparent as it progressed.
  The motion paves the way for two important Bills that the House will have the opportunity—albeit limited—to discuss later this evening: the Nuclear Safeguards Bill and the Sea Fishing Grants (Charges) Bill. Those who accuse us of considering those Bills unimportant are mistaken.
  The significance of the debate has been in relation to process—the way in which we conduct our business. Several hon. Members made important and fundamental speeches—my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) has been mentioned more than once.
  The debate has drawn out the wide range of views in the House, including that of those who might be described as the Dick Turpins, the Jesse Jameses or the marauders—those who use parliamentary tactics legitimately to disrupt business. I acknowledge that without apology. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) was prayed in aid. Some time ago, I had to counsel him to stop giving tutorials to the Opposition—they were becoming too effective. Those hon. Members want to maintain the status quo—the right of Back Benchers to fight and to work into the night. I was struck by the comment of my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich that the House has broken more people than it has made.
  On the other hand, a group of hon. Members—mainly my hon. Friends—argued that we should modernise and change our procedures. In the middle—as always—were the Liberal Democrats. They argued strongly for modernisation—but not tonight, because they will not support the motions. They argued that we have not got the balance right. I look forward to reading the paper produced by the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell).
  Mr. Stunell: The Minister implies that the guillotine is a modern invention that is driving forward the procedures of the House. Would he care to use the remainder of his speech to justify that outrageous statement?
  Mr. Tipping: I am grateful to have the opportunity of a second go. It has been said that the Liberal Democrats always sit on the fence. Their performance this evening has demonstrated that. They say that, although they do

  721
  not like the way the House works at present, they are not prepared to support the Government on this motion, but that, perhaps, they will give us an answer in the future.
  The hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) made an important point about balance. We must get the balance right. He asked me specifically to reflect on the comments made during the debate and to talk to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and to other Cabinet colleagues about them. Of course, I will.
  We must put into the balance the obvious desire of a small group of hon. Members to use the Chamber, quite legitimately, as a debating society—as a place to test ideas and to push the Government to the wall. I do not object to that—I have never done so. We must also consider those who argue strongly that in order to do some of the things that hon. Members want us to do, we should reform our procedures.
  I will closely consider the comments of the hon. Member for South Staffordshire on the programming of Bills. He will remember that that idea sprang from the Jopling report; he will remember that the Conservative party signed up to the report of the Modernisation Committee; and he will remember that the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), the shadow Leader of the House, has in recent weeks worked hard to make programming work. That is an important and significant way forward.
  Mr. Bermingham: Surely the test of whether the Opposition's approach is genuine would be their willingness for the House to sit into August and in September and October. That would create more time for debate.
  Mr. Tipping: As always, my hon. Friend leads me on to another important point, and it has been mentioned tonight. I have been struck by the number of hon. Members who have said that there are 659 Members of Parliament. There is no rubric for doing the job correctly. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) clearly thinks that his priority is to be in Chamber frequently and religiously to debate the issues. Other hon. Members—I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich for pointing this out—have argued that we do not start at 2.30 pm and work until whatever time at night. Many colleagues spend time on the work of Standing Committees and Select Committees, and other hon. Members believe that it is important to go round the country so that they can talk to people and listen to their views.
  Mr. Forth: What?
  Mr. Tipping: The right hon. Gentleman's remark typifies the view that we know all the answers. That charge has been laid against the Government, but I remind the House—
  It being three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 83 (Allocation of time to bills).
  The House divided: Ayes 294, Noes 140.

  Division No. 201]

  [6.42 pm

  AYES

  Ainger, Nick

  Dawson, Hilton

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Alexander, Douglas

  Denham, John

  Allen, Graham

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Doran, Frank

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Dowd, Jim

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Drew, David

  Ashton, Joe

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Edwards, Huw

  Austin, John

  Efford, Clive

  Banks, Tony

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Barnes, Harry

  Ennis, Jeff

  Bayley, Hugh

  Etherington, Bill

  Beard, Nigel

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Fisher, Mark

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Flint, Caroline

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

  Flynn, Paul

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Follett, Barbara

  Benton, Joe

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Berry, Roger

  Fyfe, Maria

  Betts, Clive

  Galloway, George

  Blackman, Liz

  Gapes, Mike

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Gardiner, Barry

  Blizzard, Bob

  Gerrard, Neil

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Goggins, Paul

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Browne, Desmond

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Burden, Richard

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Burgon, Colin

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Grocott, Bruce

  Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

  Grogan, John

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Hain, Peter

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Cann, Jamie

  Healey, John

  Caplin, Ivor

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Casale, Roger

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Clapham, Michael

  Heppell, John

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Hesford, Stephen

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Hill, Keith

  Hinchliffe, David

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Hope, Phil

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

  Clelland, David

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Clwyd, Ann

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Coaker, Vernon

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Cohen, Harry

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Coleman, Iain

  Hurst, Alan

  Colman, Tony

  Hutton, John

  Connarty, Michael

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Illsley, Eric

  Cooper, Yvette

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Corbett, Robin

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Jenkins, Brian

  Cousins, Jim

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Crausby, David

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Cummings, John

  Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Darvill, Keith

  Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Davidson, Ian

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  723

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Pond, Chris

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Pope, Greg

  Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

  Pound, Stephen

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Khabra, Piara S

  Purchase, Ken

  Kidney, David

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Quinn, Lawrie

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Radice, Rt Hon Giles

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Rammell, Bill

  Kingham, Ms Tess

  Rapson, Syd

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Raynsford, Nick

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Laxton, Bob

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Lepper, David

  Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

  Levitt, Tom

  Rooney, Terry

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Roy, Frank

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Ruddock, Joan

  Linton, Martin

  Salter, Martin

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Lock, David

  Savidge, Malcolm

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McCabe, Steve

  Shaw, Jonathan

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

  Singh, Marsha

  Skinner, Dennis

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Macdonald, Calum

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  McIsaac, Shona

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  McNulty, Tony

  Soley, Clive

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Spellar, John

  McWalter, Tony

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Mallaber, Judy

  Stevenson, George

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Martlew, Eric

  Stringer, Graham

  Maxton, John

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Meale, Alan

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Merron, Gillian

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Mitchell, Austin

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Timms, Stephen

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Morley, Elliot

  Todd, Mark

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

  Touhig, Don

  Trickett, Jon

  Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Mountford, Kali

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Mudie, George

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Mulin, Chris

  Tynan, Bill

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Norris, Dan

  Walley, Ms Joan

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Ward, Ms Claire

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Olner, Bill

  Watts, David

  O'Neill, Martin

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Pendry, Tom

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Pickthall, Colin

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Pike, Peter L

  Wills, Michael

  Plaskitt, James

  Wilson, Brian

  724

  Winnick, David

  Wyatt, Derek

  Wood, Mike

  Woolas, Phil

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Worthington, Tony

  Mr. David Jamieson and

  Wray, James

  Mr. Mike Hall.

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Amess, David

  Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Baldry, Tony

  Keetch, Paul

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Key, Robert

  Bercow, John

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Blunt, Crispin

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Boswell, Tim

  Lansley, Andrew

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Leigh, Edward

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Letwin, Oliver

  Brady, Graham

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Brazier, Julian

  Lidington, David

  Breed, Colin

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Loughton, Tim

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Luff, Peter

  Burns, Simon

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Cash, William

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Madel, Sir David

  Chope, Christopher

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Clappison, James

  Malins, Humfrey

  Collins, Tim

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Cotter, Brian

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Cran, James

  Moss, Malcolm

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Page, Richard

  Day, Stephen

  Paterson, Owen

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Pickles, Eric

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Randall, John

  Faber, David

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Fabricant, Michael

  Rendel, David

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Robathan, Andrew

  Flight, Howard

  Robertson, Laurence

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Ruffley, David

  Fraser, Christopher

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Gale, Roger

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Garnier, Edward

  Sanders, Adrian

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Gibb, Nick

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Gidley, Sandra

  Shepherd, Richard

  Gill, Christopher

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Gorrie, Donald

  Steen, Anthony

  Green, Damian

  Streeter, Gary

  Greenway, John

  Stunell, Andrew

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Swayne, Desmond

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Syms, Robert

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Hammond, Philip

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Harvey, Nick

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Heald, Oliver

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Tredinnick, David

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Trend, Michael

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Tyler, Paul

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Webb, Steve

  Hunter, Andrew

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Whittingdale, John

  725

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Wilkinson, John

  Willetts, David

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Willis, Phil

  Mr. Peter Atkinson and

  Wilshire, David

  Mr. Keith Simpson.

  Yeo, Tim

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Nuclear Safeguards Bill [Lords] and the Sea Fishing Grants (Charges) Bill—

  Timetable
  1.—(1) Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading of the Nuclear Safeguards Bill [Lords] shall be completed at today's sitting and brought to a conclusion (if not previously concluded) four hours after the commencement of proceedings on this Motion.
  (2) Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading of the Sea Fishing Grants (Charges) Bill shall be completed at today's sitting and brought to a conclusion (if not previously concluded) five hours after the commencement of proceedings on this Motion.

  Questions to be put
  2.—(1) This paragraph applies for the purpose of bringing proceedings on either Bill to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1.
  (2) The Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

  (a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;

  (b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;

  (c) the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown;

  (d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded.

  (3) On a Motion made for a new Clause or Schedule, the Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.
  (4) If two or more Questions would otherwise fall to be put under sub-paragraph (2)(c) on amendments moved or Motions made by a Minister of the Crown, the Speaker shall instead put a single Question in relation to those amendments or Motions.

  Miscellaneous
  3. Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply at today's sitting to proceedings to which this Order applies.
  4. Proceedings to which this Order applies shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
  5. No Motion shall be made to alter the order in which proceedings on either Bill are taken or to recommit either Bill.
  6. No dilatory Motion shall be made in relation to either Bill except by a Minister of the Crown; and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
  7. If at today's sitting—
  (a) a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 24 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) has been stood over to Seven o'clock; but
  (b) proceedings to which this Order applies have begun before then,
  proceedings on that Motion shall stand postponed until the conclusion of those proceedings.
  8. Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply to either Bill.

  Supplemental Orders
  9. The proceedings on any motion made by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall (if not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced; and Standing Order No. 15(1) shall apply to those proceedings.
  10. If at today's sitting the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the time at which any proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion under this Order, no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

Orders of the Day
  Nuclear Safeguards Bill [Lords]
  Not amended in the Standing Committee, considered.
  Nuclear Safeguards Bill [Lords]
    New Clause 1

      RIGHTS OF SEARCHING PERSONS
      '.—(1) Where a police constable has entered premises under authority of a warrant issued under section (Forcible entry warrant) above and has reasonable cause to believe that Additional Protocol information is secreted in or on the body of a person or persons on the premises he may conduct a non-intimate body search of the person or persons.
      (2) When a constable has formed the belief in subsection (1) he may order the person or persons to remove any outer coat and hat which may be then searched by a police constable of any sex.
      (3) A constable of the same sex as the person or persons being searched may conduct a search of the person or persons and their clothing but may not remove any further articles of clothing.
      (4) If a constable conducting the body search in subsection (3) above is of the opinion that Additional Protocol information can only be discovered by an intimate body search of the person or persons being searched then he shall inform the person or persons that he is of that opinion, and if the information is not produced voluntarily he may arrest the person or persons and take them to a police station for an intimate body search.
      (5) An intimate body search may only be conducted by a qualified medical practitioner at a police station.
      (6) Nothing in this section shall give any rights to authorised officers or others to conduct searches of persons or their clothing.'.—[Mr. Maclean.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      6.57 pm
      Mr. David Maclean: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 3—Forcible entry warrant—
      '.—(1) When an authorised officer is refused entry to the premises stipulated in section 4 above, he may apply to a Justice of the Peace for a forcible entry warrant.
      (2) If a Justice of the Peace is satisfied on information given on oath that an authorised officer was refused entry on a duly presented warrant, he may issue a forcible entry warrant authorising a police constable to enter the premises (if necessary by force) at any reasonable hour within one month from the time of the issue of the warrant.
      (3) A constable who enters premises under authority of a warrant issued under this section shall take with him an authorised officer or officers and may take with him such other persons and equipment as appear to him to be necessary.
      (4) The powers of an authorised officer who enters premises under the authority of a warrant issued under this section include power—

      (a) to inspect anything found on the premises;

      (b) to require any information which is held in electronic form and is accessible from the premises to be produced in a form in which he can read and copy it; and

      (c) to copy, or to seize and remove, any document or other thing which he has reasonable cause to believe is something which contains Additional Protocol information.

      (5) A constable who enters premises under the authority of a warrant issued by virtue of this section may—
      728

      (a) give assistance to the authorised officer to prevent interference with him carrying out his duties in section 4 above; and

      (b) may assist in searching the premises.

      (6) A person who—

      (a) wilfully obstructs an authorised officer in the exercise of a power conferred by warrant or fails without reasonable excuse to comply with a legitimate request made by an authorised officer; or

      (b) obstructs, or fails without reasonable excuse to comply with the instructions of a police constable,

      is guilty of an offence.'.
      Amendment No. 6, in clause 4, page 3, line 25, after "premises" insert ", person or equipment".
      Amendment No. 7, in page 3, line 27, after "premises" insert—
      ', search the person or access the equipment'.
      Amendment No. 25, in page 3, line 27, leave out—
      ', if necessary by force,'.
      Amendment No. 8, in page 3, line 27, leave out "one month" and insert "fourteen days".
      Amendment No. 26, in page 3, line 45, leave out—
      ', if necessary by force,'.
      Amendment No. 9, in page 3, line 45, leave out "at any reasonable hour".
      Amendment No. 28, in clause 5, page 5, line 6, leave out "An Agency Inspector may," and insert—
      'If a justice of the peace is satisfied, on information given on oath, that it is reasonable and necessary in accordance with the Additional Protocol for an Agency inspector to do so, he may issue a warrant authorising an Agency inspector to.'.
      Amendment No. 10, in page 5, line 17, at end insert—
      '(2A) . The Agency's powers of access under subsection (2) shall be exercised only in the presence of a constable.'.
      Amendment No. 12, in page 5, line 27, leave out "may" and insert "must".
      Amendment No. 30, in page 5, line 28, at end insert—
      '(4A) No Agency inspector shall, by virtue of this section, search the clothing or the body of a person or persons.'.
      Amendment No. 31, in page 5, line 29, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
      '(5) Where an Agency inspector is refused entry at any location falling within subsection (1) above he may apply to a justice of the peace for a forcible entry warrant authorising a police constable to enter the premises (if necessary by force) at any reasonable hour within one month from the time of the issue of the warrant.'.
      Amendment No. 29, in page 5, line 29, leave out subsection (5).
      Amendment No. 27, in page 5, line 32, leave out from "section" to end of line 33.
      Amendment No. 13, in page 5, line 38, leave out "conclusive".
      Amendment No. 33, in page 5, line 47, at end insert—
      '(7A) For the purposes of subsection (7) above, it shall be a defence if the actions of any Agency inspector, in entering or searching premises or persons, infringe the European Convention of Human Rights.'.
      Mr. Maclean: It may make more sense if I speak first to new clause 3 and then to new clause 1. I do not propose to say much about my amendments, as they are generally consequential upon my new clauses.

      729
      If I may say so, the two new clauses are quite reasonable attempts to improve the Bill: clearly you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and Madam Speaker and your advisers concluded that they are in order and selected them for debate. They attempt to deal with an aspect of the Bill that caused great concern in the other place and some concern here on a brief Second Reading. No doubt, the matter might have caused concern in the Committee considering the Bill and, had I been fortunate enough to serve on it, I could have advanced my arguments then instead of waiting for Report.
      I appreciate that, with the best will in the world, it is not possible for my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) or me to serve on all the Committees considering Bills in which we have an interest. Therefore, we must use Report stage as a legitimate means to advance arguments that, ideally, we could have advanced in Committee had we had the opportunity. However, we must make such arguments on the Floor of the House to, perhaps, a more receptive and less specialised audience.
      To understand new clause 3, it should be set in the context of the Bill. The best starting point for that is not clause 1, but clause 4. Clauses 1, 2 and 3 may be relevant, but only tangentially so. I can get straight into the guts of my new clauses, without spending too much time, if I refer the House to clause 4.
      Under clause 4, a justice of the peace can—if he is satisfied, on information given on oath, that the Secretary of State does not have all the information that he might want under clause 2, and that there is some document, thing or other information that a person has refused to give to the Secretary of State—issue a warrant to an authorised officer to allow him to enter the premises of the person who is believed to have that additional protocol information. The authorised officer can enter the premises, if necessary by force—mark those magic words—at any reasonable hour within one month from the time of the issue of the warrant and search them.
      That is the first part of clause 4: a justice of the peace gives an authorised officer the power to enter premises, if necessary by force, at any reasonable hour, and to search them.
      Subsection (2) again gives an authorised officer the power to enter premises, if necessary by force, again at any reasonable hour within one month, in order to search for a different class of information.
      Other parts of clause 4 are necessary to understand my new clause 3. Subsection (5) goes on to state that the authorised officer, who has just got his warrant on oath from the justice of the peace, and has the power to enter premises, if necessary by force, can take with him any other persons and equipment as appear to him to be necessary.
      The authorised officer can inspect anything found on the premises. He can require any information that is held in electronic form and is accessible from the premises to be produced in a form in which he can read and copy it. There will be an interesting interface with the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill in that regard, but I have not tabled amendments on the matter. In addition, the authorised officer can copy, seize and remove any
      730
      document or other thing if he considers that it contains or is relevant to additional protocol information. Those are the powers of the authorised officer who enters premises.
      Mr. Eric Forth: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. In his remarks, which of course will be curtailed by the viciousness of the guillotine, which will disallow proper debate, I hope that my right hon. Friend will comment, at least in passing, on my amendment No. 9, which proposes leaving out "at any reasonable hour", and on my amendment No. 10, in which, importantly, I seek to allow the agency's powers of access to be exercised only in the presence of a constable. I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to those amendments, which are important and germane, and which were selected, on the off chance that I may not have an opportunity to speak to them.
      Mr. Maclean: My right hon. Friend is right to draw my attention to those important amendments. I have to make a decision. There are 32 new clauses and amendments in this group. If we decided to give ourselves just 15 minutes for Third Reading of this important Bill—the last Minister at the Dispatch Box, the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office, said that it was an important Bill—we would have less than one minute per amendment. We cannot go down that avenue of debate again, but that is the difficulty that I face: less than one minute per amendment to try to explain a complex subject.
      Mr. Edward Leigh: I made the point at an early stage of the proceedings, but what my right hon. Friend said underlines it. We once fought a civil war because the Government, for the collection of ship money, were prepared to break into people's homes. We now have one minute per amendment to discuss an important matter. That is outrageous.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman need not concern himself about that. It is not the matter before us.
      Mr. Maclean: There is a part of the clause which gives the authorised officer the right to break into people's homes, not for ship money but for additional protocol information. [Interruption.] Ship money—I said it very carefully.
      The Bill, as drafted, gives the authorised officer the power to
      take with him such other persons,
      but we have no information from the Minister about who those persons may be. They may be assistants. I assume that some of them may be technologists, and some may be computer boffins to decode the encrypted messages on the computer. Others may be nuclear installation-type experts.
      The authorised officer is also allowed to take such equipment as appears to him necessary. I could understand taking equipment if there was reason to believe that, in addition to nuclear information, there was some fissile material or radioactive material on the premises. Perhaps the equipment refers simply to cameras to photograph information, or additional computers to type up reports as the search proceeds. We do not have that information, and we need to be told.

      731
      The Bill rightly allows the authorised officer to inspect anything found on the premises, once he has got in there, and rightly he has the powers to order that stuff on the computer be turned into an accessible form. No doubt a penalty is available if someone refuses to decrypt the information.
      The next subsection particularly concerns me, and that is where my new clause becomes relevant. I have tried to redraft subsection (6), bearing in mind that our authorised officer has gone to the court, to the JP, through all that palaver, which he does not find too a big a hassle, and he has his warrant on oath, giving him the power to search premises. He can take with him a constable, who may enter the premises under the authority of a warrant.
      The constable may—I note the permissive word "may"—
      give such assistance as an authorised officer may request for the purpose of facilitating the exercise of any power under this section;
      furthermore, the constable may
      search or cause to be searched any person on the premises who the constable has reasonable cause to believe may have in his possession any document or other thing—
      that is, additional protocol information.
      Subsection (7) goes on to state:
      No constable shall, by virtue of subsection (6)(b)—
      which I have just quoted—
      search a person of the opposite sex.
      Concern was expressed during the brief Second Reading debate which the Government graciously allowed us to hold in the House for a few hours one night, before ruthlessly closing down the Bill. There was a brief debate on the dangers and the problems that would arise when a constable had to conduct a body search, a strip search or an intimate search of a person of the opposite sex.
      My new clause attempts to deal with that problem, give the Bill coherence and put it in the framework of existing PACE—Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984—rules. It is a pity that the much more detailed new schedule tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, on strip searching and intimate body searching, was not selected. He could no doubt expatiate at length on the technicalities, but that is not a route that we shall go down tonight.
      Mr. John Bercow: Will my right hon. Friend allow me?
      Mr. Maclean: Yes, provided that the intervention is not on my right hon. Friend's intimate searching schedule.
      Mr. Bercow: It is not. I applaud the purport of my right hon. Friend's new clause 1, but would not the reference in subsection (2) to
      a police constable of any sex
      be better replaced by a reference to a police constable of either sex?
      Mr. Maclean: Ah! My hon. Friend may be working under the assumption that that is a grammatical or typographical error. In a new spirit which emanates from the Home Office and encompasses the police service, I am trying not to cause offence to any officer. These days
      732
      we might have a male officer or a female officer, and it is just possible that there may be a police officer of any sex.
      Mr. Bercow: Indeterminate sex.
      Mr. Maclean: Indeed. I would not wish to be accused of being institutionally gender prejudiced, or whatever the derogatory term may be.
      Dr. Julian Lewis: Androgynyphobic.
      Mr. Maclean: That was a helpful intervention from a sedentary position—we shall have the benefit of reading it in Hansard with the correct spelling tomorrow.
      I have explained the context of the amendments. Hon. Members and those who follow our debate carefully can now appreciate the purpose of new clauses 1 and 3 and my attempt to give greater coherence to the Bill. The new clauses also deal with the problem of the ability of officers of either, any or indeterminate sex—or even both, which I once came across in forensic medicine—to search people of a similar nature, or who are similarly equipped or attired.
      In new clause 3, I work from the assumption that the Government believe that it is acceptable for an authorised officer to go through the palaver of applying to a justice of the peace to get a warrant to enter premises. One could have a debate—the other place held one—on clause 5, which grants foreign agency inspectors the right to march into premises without a warrant. However, we are debating not clause 5 but clause 4, which deals with a British official, the "authorised officer". He has to surmount the hurdle of obtaining a warrant from a JP to enter premises.
      If the Government are willing to make an authorised officer jump over the hurdle of getting a warrant from a JP, I propose another small hurdle or sub-hurdle. If the authorised officer meets resistance, he should obtain a second warrant, which new clause 3 describes as the "forcible entry warrant". In most cases when an authorised officer enters the premises, he will not meet resistance. If he arrives at "any reasonable hour"—I hope we shall have time to debate the amendments that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst tabled on that—"within one month", I assume that the people on the premises will open their doors and voluntarily allow the authorised person to enter.
      Let us suppose that the authorised person meets resistance and that the people on the premises deny him entry. The Bill provides for the authorised officer to use force, if necessary. How can he do that? Can he do it himself? That is a grey area. We all assume that the constable will exercise the force. However, the constable may not be empowered; the officer may not have brought the constable with him. The Bill does not state that in all circumstances in which an authorised officer is given the right of entry, he has to take a police officer with him.
      Perhaps the authorised officer will take a constable with him in unusual circumstances; perhaps he will take a bobby with him as a matter of course when he has obtained a warrant, to deal with possible resistance. However, the Bill does not provide for that. Even when a constable accompanies the authorised officer—if he is

      733
      asked to do that—the constable has the discretion to refuse to use his powers if he does not wish to do so. The constable "may" assist, if necessary.
      New clause 3 tries to clarify and change the position. When the authorised officer knocks on the door, and people refuse to answer, the new clause provides for him to return immediately to the court and obtain a forcible entry warrant. That empowers the constable to use the necessary force to gain entry. Is not that a better system? Is not that more in keeping with our British view of justice and forcible entry into premises? If a police constable—not an authorised officer from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions or the Nuclear Safeguards Authority or an agency—knocks on the door, he can say, "It's not an inspector this time, chummy. It's me and the police service. Here's a warrant for forcible entry." If he is refused, the officer can then use force.
      7.15 pm
      Mr. Paul Keetch: I am trying to understand the right hon. Gentleman's point. How would he secure the premises between the time when the first hurdle had been attempted and the police officer took the second hurdle? How would the right hon. Gentleman ensure that any material that warranted the inspection was not removed from the premises in the meantime?
      Mr. Maclean: The authorised officer would encounter that problem when he got his first warrant. He must get a warrant to enter the premises. I assume that people who have nuclear material or information are so clever and dangerous that, if they wished to thwart the entry of an authorised officer, they would do it from stage one. Perhaps the material will be encrypted, and the officers will not get their hands on it. The fact that the authorised officer has to fetch a police officer and return with a warrant a couple of hours later is not fatal to the successful raiding of the premises. The people who will try to frustrate the measure know that an authorised officer will try to raid their premises.
      Mr. Keetch: Does the right hon. Gentleman presume that a company in, for example, Penrith or Hereford, will have been told about the initial warrant?
      Mr. Maclean: I work on the assumption that even if the company has not been told, it will know about it. The Bill does not provide that when an authorised officer applies for a warrant on oath, the people whose premises he wishes to enter must be informed. I did not spot that in the measure. Such a provision may be built into the Bill. If not, the court will grant a warrant to the authorised officers without informing the people whose premises will be inspected. We are not considering petty crooks who will be taken by surprise by a sudden police raid and found with the incriminating stuff on them.
      The premises that are to be raided will belong to those who are involved in the nuclear industry and have some information that is regarded as additional protocol information. If they do not expect a visit from the authorised officers when the Bill is passed, they will be poor at their jobs, or at least their criminality.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Dr. Kim Howells): The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point. He makes an analogy with what he describes as petty criminals. He knows that the powers we are considering are last resort measures. They would be used only in circumstances of, for example, suspicion that someone was selling nuclear material to a country such as Iraq. Does he believe that it is less urgent to obtain forcible entry when all other approaches have been refused than when, for example, the police carry out a drugs raid? The illicit sale of nuclear material is at least as important.
      Mr. Maclean: Of course it is. However, why does not the Minister redraft the Bill to place the powers of forcible entry clearly in the hands of the constable and of the police service rather than the authorised officer? The Bill provides simply that the constable may assist if necessary. The Minister grants the powers to break into people's property to an authorised officer. Without straying from the path and considering clause 5 in detail, if the Minister is so proud of the provisions whereby an authorised officer applies to a justice of the peace, I hope that he will extend that to clause 5 and make the agency inspector approach a JP. Agency inspectors can enter any premises anywhere without a warrant from a JP.
      Mr. Bercow: Forcible entry is important, but so too is the activity that might follow. Does my right hon. Friend seriously propose in new clause 3(4)(c) that individuals who are subject to a search should automatically be deprived permanently of their property, or does he concede that they should have the opportunity under new clause 3 to make representations about having the property returned to them?
      Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend makes another good point; I am dealing with new clause 3 subsection by subsection, but can jump ahead a couple to deal with it. I tried to replicate in new clause 3(4) the main provisions that the Government have included in clauses 4 and 5. I did not want to build in any other concepts which they might say were different from what they want to achieve and therefore unacceptable. The wording that I use in subsection (4)(a), (b) and (c) is identical, or almost identical, to that used by the Government.
      I accept the difficulty that the officer could severely disadvantage a business were he wrongly
      to copy, or to seize and remove, any document or other thing which he has reasonable cause to believe is something which contains Additional Protocol information.
      Taking the whole computer to de-encrypt or decode it, to search the hard drive or to take it to bits, and taking other equipment such as machinery or documents could seriously affect the financial ability of the business and there would be no redress. We could explore such matters if we had more time.
      Mr. Richard Page: I am slightly curious, as my right hon. Friend seems to have formed an alliance with the Minister. New clause 3 refers to gaining entry at reasonable hours. Given that the Minister said that illegal fissionable material might be held in a premises, surely breaking in only in authorised or legitimate hours is unduly generous. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst

      735
      (Mr. Forth) tackles that point sensibly in amendment No. 9. I should find it hard to support new clause 3 unless my right hon. Friend explains the fundamental weakness that it contains.
      Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend makes a reasonable point. If I had an opportunity, I would advise the House to vote for my new clause, as it would be amended by the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst. I am not the complete parliamentary draftsman's department, nor is my right hon. Friend; he was no doubt looking at the Bill's flaws and tabling amendments that he thought would improve it. I saw what I considered to be the major flaw in clauses 4 and 5, and new clauses 1 and 3 are attempts to redraft those clauses to introduce the concept of the forcible entry warrant and to clarify the rights of searching persons.
      The easiest way to draft new clause 3 was to replicate some of the provisions that the Government have included in clause 4, even though I dislike some of them, and include the term "at any reasonable hour". I assumed that there would be a separate debate and that a change could be made in due course.
      Mr. Forth: I hope that my right hon. Friend will not skip lightly over new clause 3(4)(b). My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) seduced him into referring to subsection (4)(c). Will my right hon. Friend, who is a famous e-person, explain to me how anyone will know that information is held electronically, how it will be accessible from the premises and how it will be produced in a form that can be read and copied? I know nothing about e-things and care less, and I am at a loss to understand how the constable making a forcible entry will know what—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That intervention is too long.
      Mr. Maclean: I have picked up the general thrust of my right hon. Friend's intervention. Again, he makes a valid point, with which we wrestled for a considerable time in Committee during proceedings on the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill. There is no doubt that if a person holds all that information in encrypted form, but refuses to produce the key, the Home Secretary can serve another warrant. Alternatively, inspectors and other officials may have the power to order that the encryption key be handed over, in which case, if the person complies, the authorised officer can use the encryption key, decode the computer and retrieve all the information that it contains, which may or may not be relevant. If the person refuses to hand over the encryption key, there is a maximum two-year sentence.
      A difficulty may arise if the person with the computer says that he will hand over the information, but then issues the officers with what he claims to be all the information on his computer. However, other stuff may be hidden on a separate drive. I would not wish to stray, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I have owned a laptop computer for two years. I became rather vexed two weeks ago as, although it is supposed to have a 1.2 gigabyte drive, it was chock-a-block. I could not figure out what was wrong until I suddenly discovered that it had two other drives—a C drive and a D drive—as well as an E drive for
      736
      compact discs. The computer that I had used assiduously for two years and on which I had produced information in electronic form had two other drives.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the debate is time limited and other Members wish to speak. We cannot go into his computer problems.
      Mr. Maclean: Like you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am vexed that the debate is time limited.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am not vexed; I have no problem one way or the other.
      Mr. Maclean: I, too, will try to relax and remain in order.
      Mr. Bercow rose—
      Mr. Keetch rose—
      Mr. Maclean: I shall give way in a moment.
      I did not intend to discuss my computer. However, I included subsection (4)(b) in new clause 3 because information can be hidden in electronic form, just as it was hidden on my ruddy computer. No doubt the constable and the authorised officers will have greater scientific and computer knowledge, so they will be able to extract all the relevant e-information.
      Mr. Keetch: Now that we have discovered that, in the right hon. Gentleman's opinion, new clause 3 is worthy of debate only in relation to amendments tabled by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and given that those amendments will not come before the House, does he still advise us to support it?
      Mr. Maclean: I do not want to mislead the hon. Gentleman. I did not want to suggest that new clause 3 is worth debating or supporting only if amendment No. 9, which was tabled by right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, is accepted.
      Mr. Forth: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch) has made a helpful intervention. Will it be possible for the House to divide twice at the end of the debate—first, on new clause 3 and, secondly, on amendment No. 9—given that my right hon. Friend says that new clause 3 could be amended?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is possible, but it depends on when the Division takes place.
      Mr. Maclean: That is helpful guidance and during the next few minutes I shall consider the best route to take.
      New clause 3 has considerable merit as it stands. Admittedly, my hon. Friends might not like aspects of subsection (4), but nevertheless the House should support the concept of the forcible entry warrant.
      Mr. Bercow: My right hon. Friend defends new clause 3 on the ground that, although imperfect, it represents a

      737
      substantial improvement to the Bill. Is he satisfied that new clause 3 conforms to the European convention on human rights, which we could not possibly consider breaching given our attacks on the Government on that point?
      Mr. Maclean: I do not have access to the Attorney-General or others who may wish to consult great European organs such as the European Court of Human Rights to determine whether the Bill satisfies the convention, but as the Government say that clause 4 will satisfy it, I am certain that new clause 3 has an even better chance of doing so because it includes an additional safeguard to defend the freedom of the individual from having his premises forcibly entered by an authorised officer.
      7.30 pm
      I have included another important concept in new clause 3. It would ensure that a police constable who enters a premises could do only what he considers to be absolutely lawful and essential to help the authorised officer. At present, the Bill provides for a constable to
      give such assistance as an authorised officer may request.
      What if the authorised officer requests illegal assistance? What if the authorised officer says to the police constable, "Arrest that person", or gives the police constable an order, and the constable concludes that he has no authority under United Kingdom law to do what he is being told to do? In that event, the authority would consist of the fact that an authorised officer had asked the constable to commit an illegal act.
      Let me give another hypothetical example. Let us suppose that the authorised officer says, "Take that person's fingerprints", or tells the constable to make an immediate search or take a sample without reading the person concerned his rights. I assume that in such circumstances the constable would say, "I am sorry, but I will not do that. Under British law I cannot take a sample. I cannot give you that help; I cannot arrest that person, who has not committed a crime known to man." The constable's only defence—the only basis for his right to do that—would be the fact that he was obeying the orders of the authorised officer.
      That would put the police constable in an invidious position. It would force him to say to an authorised officer, "I am sorry, but I am disobeying you. I will not do what you say, because in my opinion what you are asking me to do is contrary to the rules of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, contrary to Standing Orders and contrary to the law of the land. But for the fact that you have the right to order me to do it, I would not do it, because it is illegal."
      My revised version of the wording in new clause 3 says:
      A constable who enters premises under authority of a warrant…may…give assistance to the authorised officer to prevent interference with him carrying out his duties…and…may assist in searching the premises.
      I am restricting the rights of the constable to merely giving assistance to prevent the authorised officer from being interfered with or obstructed.
      Mr. Bercow: That is defensive.
      Mr. Maclean: Yes, it is a defensive provision, and it is a much narrower provision than that allowing the constable to
      give such assistance as an authorised officer may request.
      That, I think, leaves the position far too wide open. It gives carte blanche.
      New clause 1 states:
      Where a police constable has entered premises under authority of a warrant
      the new forcible entry warrant that I have just described—
      and has reasonable cause to believe that Additional Protocol information is secreted in or on the body of a person or persons on the premises he may conduct a non-intimate body search of the person or persons.
      That surely makes the position much clearer than the skimpy lines in the Bill telling us that a constable may
      search or cause to be searched any person on the premises who the constable has reasonable cause to believe may have…any document or other thing
      and that
      No constable shall…search a person of the opposite sex.
      My new clause places the onus on the constable to conclude that there is
      Additional Protocol information…in or on the body of the person or persons
      before conducting a non-intimate body search.
      Subsection (2) of the new clause describes that search. It states:
      When a constable has formed the belief in subsection (1)
      the belief that I have just described—
      he may order the person or persons to remove any outer coat and hat which may be then searched by a police constable of any sex.
      The non-intimate body search would be restricted to ordering a person to remove outer clothing such as a hat or coat. That would be followed by the normal "pat-down" body search.
      Mr. Forth: Notwithstanding my right hon. Friend's enormous experience of these matters, how does he expect an effective search to be made if the hat and coat are removed, but footwear is left intact? I should have thought that things could be hidden in shoes.
      Mr. Maclean: That is perfectly possible, but I refer my right hon. Friend to subsection (4). As one who has, in a past life, conducted body searches at airports and other premises, I do have considerable experience of these matters, and I am happy to advise the Government, free and gratis. Subsection (4) states:
      If a constable conducting the body search in subsection (3) above is of the opinion that Additional Protocol information can only be discovered by an intimate body search of the person or persons being searched then he shall inform the person or persons that he is of that opinion.
      If the person concerned does not then produce the information voluntarily—from that person's body, from the footwear, or from any other article of clothing closer to the person's body than an outer coat or hat—the person can be arrested and taken to a police station for an intimate body search.
      Mr. Forth: Ah!
      Mr. Maclean: The intimate body search, which, under my new clause, would be conducted by a qualified

      739
      medical practitioner, would encompass body orifices. The police do not normally consider the mouth to be intimate nowadays, but all other parts of the body could be searched by a qualified medical practitioner at a police station. In the course of that, clothing would be removed and could be searched, and anything secreted in boots or socks would also be discovered.
      I consider it an important protection for members of the public for the right to conduct strip-down or intimate body searches to be given to authorised officers or police constables who would turn up and conduct searches at the scene. I think it right to clarify this area of the law. I invite the Minister to consider the—I must confess—much better proposals tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, which set out in intimate detail, indeed excruciating detail, how to conduct proper body searches.
      Dr. Howells: As an expert on laptops and CDs, the right hon. Gentleman will know that any such information would almost certainly be contained on floppy disks or CDs. Can he tell us in which orifice he thinks they would be secreted?
      Mr. Maclean: I can certainly think of Labour Members who could hold a CD in their mouths without too much difficulty. [Laughter.] The Minister must admit that he set that one up.
      Mr. Bercow: Some of us are less concerned about the intimacy of the body search than about the sex of the person undertaking it. I am thinking of subsection (5) of new clause 1. Would my right hon. Friend grant the person to be searched the right to specify that the medical practitioner should not be of the same sex as him or her?
      Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. I pointed out that we should make allowance on the off chance for the existence of a police constable of "any sex", or indeterminate sex, or none. Similarly, I accept that there can be some pretty odd doctors about. That should produce a few more letters in the postbag.
      Mr. Leigh: There has been some merriment at this point, but time is running out. I hope my right hon. Friend will make the serious point that, if the new clauses and amendments are not passed, for almost the first time in our history a civil servant will be able, without the express authority of the court, to break into someone's home. That is not a laughing matter; it is a very serious matter, and the new clauses and amendments are very important.
      Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend is right.
      I dealt first with new clause 3, which contains important powers relating to the forcible entry warrant, because I thought it helpful to deal with it before coming to the searching of persons. That seemed a logical step. Inevitably, when the House starts discussing the searching of people and bodies, some see cause for merriment. There has been legitimate scope for that on every Committee on which I have served when Ministers have tabled clauses of this nature. Let us face it: it will be a poor day when the House takes itself too seriously about everything.
      740
      There may be legitimate scope for merriment in new clause 1, if we do not get it right. Nevertheless, the underlying thrust of the new clauses is an attempt to tighten parts of the Bill that I think can be tightened without the Government's being caused any difficulty.
      If Madam Speaker had selected amendments to clause 5 to make an agency inspector get a warrant, the Government would rightly say, "Can't do that. It's totally contrary to what we've agreed. We've signed an international agreement. You're asking us to change something that we've signed up to as a Government. Can't be done." We are not asking the Government to do that. They are happy for an authorised officer to go to a justice of the peace to obtain a warrant under clause 4. They are happy that, in slightly grey and indeterminate circumstances, a police constable may accompany that officer. We are not sure what would happen if the police superintendent running the basic command unit refused and said, "I've more to do with my bobbies than to send them with your inspectors to raid premises looking for nuclear material." He may refuse, or he may decide that it is important and allocate officers, go himself or send an inspector. Joint police co-operation is a grey area and needs to be clarified.
      In new clause 1, I have tried to clarify searching, which is also a grey area. The Government's clause on searching is so narrow as to be meaningless. Searching people of the opposite sex is a grey area. I think that I know where the Government are coming from. I know what powers they want to build into the legislation. I suggest that my new clause 1 is an improvement.
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst will want to argue passionately for his amendment to miss out "any reasonable hour". I would not resist that amendment, and would happily vote for it.
      It being four hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to Order [this day], put forthwith the Question necessary for the disposal of proceedings to be concluded at that hour.
      Motion made, and Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Mr. Pope.]
      The House divided: Ayes 310, Noes 2.

      Division No. 202]

      [7.42 pm

      AYES

      Ainger, Nick

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Alexander, Douglas

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Allen, Graham

      Berry, Roger

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Betts, Clive

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Blackman, Liz

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Blizzard, Bob

      Ashton, Joe

      Blunkett, Rt Hon David

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Austin, John

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Banks, Tony

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Barnes, Harry

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Bayley, Hugh

      Breed, Colin

      Beard, Nigel

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Browne, Desmond

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Burden, Richard

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Burgon, Colin

      Bell, Martin (Tatton)

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

      Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

      Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

      Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

      741

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

      Grocott, Bruce

      Grogan, John

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Hain, Peter

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Cann, Jamie

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Caplin, Ivor

      Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

      Casale, Roger

      Harvey, Nick

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Clapham, Michael

      Healey, John

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Heppell, John

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Hesford, Stephen

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Hill, Keith

      Clelland, David

      Hinchliffe, David

      Clwyd, Ann

      Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

      Coaker, Vernon

      Hope, Phil

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Cohen, Harry

      Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

      Coleman, Iain

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Colman, Tony

      Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

      Connarty, Michael

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Corbett, Robin

      Hurst, Alan

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Hutton, John

      Cotter, Brian

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Cousins, Jim

      Illsley, Eric

      Crausby, David

      Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

      Cryer, John (Hornhurch)

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Cummings, John

      Jenkins, Brian

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      Darvill, Keith

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Davidson, Ian

      Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Dawson, Hilton

      Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Denham, John

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Doran, Frank

      Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

      Dowd, Jim

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Drew, David

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Keetch, Paul

      Edwards, Huw

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Efford, Clive

      Khabra, Piara S

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Kidney, David

      Ennis, Jeff

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Etherington, Bill

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Fearn, Ronnie

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Field, Rt Hon Frank

      Kingham, Ms Tess

      Fisher, Mark

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      Laxton, Bob

      Flint, Caroline

      Lepper, David

      Flynn, Paul

      Levitt, Tom

      Follett, Barbara

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

      Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

      Fyfe, Maria

      Linton, Martin

      Galloway, George

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Lock, David

      Gerrard, Neil

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Gidley, Sandra

      McCabe, Steve

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      McCafferty, Ms Chris

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Godsiff, Roger

      Macdonald, Calum

      Goggins, Paul

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      McIsaac, Shona

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

      Gorrie, Donald

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      McNulty, Tony

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      MacShane, Denis

      742

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Sedgemore, Brian

      McWalter, Tony

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Mallaber, Judy

      Short, Rt Hon Clare

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Singh, Marsha

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Martlew, Eric

      Maxton, John

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Meale, Alan

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Merron, Gillian

      Soley, Clive

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Mitchell, Austin

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Moffatt, Laura

      Stevenson, George

      Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Morley, Elliot

      Stinchcombe, Paul

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

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)

      Straw, Rt Hon Jack

      Stringer, Graham

      Mountford, Kali

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Mudie, George

      Stunell, Andrew

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Norris, Dan

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Organ, Mrs Diana

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Pearson, Ian

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Pendry, Tom

      Timms, Stephen

      Perham, Ms Linda

      Tipping, Paddy

      Pickthall, Colin

      Todd, Mark

      Pike, Peter L

      Trickett, Jon

      Plaskitt, James

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Pond, Chris

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Pope, Greg

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Pound, Stephen

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Tyler, Paul

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Tynan, Paul

      Prescott, Rt Hon John

      Tynan, Bill

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Purchase, Ken

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

      Wareing, Robert N

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Watts, David

      Radice, Rt Hon Giles

      Webb, Steve

      Rammell, Bill

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Rapson, Syd

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Raynsford, Nick

      Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Rendel, David

      Willis, Phil

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Wilson, Brian

      Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

      Winnick, David

      Rooney, Terry

      Wood, Mike

      Rowlands, Ted

      Woolas, Phil

      Roy, Frank

      Worthington, Tony

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Wray, James

      Salter, Martin

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Sanders, Adrian

      Wyatt, Derek

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Mr. David Jamieson and

      Mr. Don Touhig.

      NOES

      Paterson, Owen

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Wilkinson, John

      Mr. Eric Forth and

      Mr. Edward Leigh.

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Bill read the Third time, and passed, without amendment.

  Sea Fishing Grants (Charges) Bill
  Not amended in the Standing Committee, considered.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  7.54 pm
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  The Bill is short and straightforward. It is a very narrow Bill, but it has a complex legal background. Its purpose is to ensure the validity of charges that were levied by the Sea Fish Industry Authority between 1 October 1981 and 3 May 1996 in connection with its administration of grant schemes under the Fisheries Act 1981. It also applies to the validity of charges that were made by the authority's predecessor, the Herring Industry Board, between March 1972 and October 1981.
  The charges covered the costs incurred by the bodies' surveyors in inspecting a vessel at the application stage to check on what work was needed, including examination of technical specifications and plans and inspection on completion of work, so that the surveyor could satisfy himself that the work had been carried out properly. Those charges were ended in 1996.
  A couple of points were raised in Committee that I should mention. I was pressed to publish the legal advice that the Government had received—or a précis of it—which led the Government to introduce the Bill. I tried to be as open with the Committee as I possibly could be. A note on the legal background to the Bill was sent to all Committee members and placed in the Library of the House. That gives a full explanation of the legal reasoning, even though it is not quite the legal advice, because of the precedent that Governments have always followed. I shall not go into the details of that legal advice as I did so in Committee.
  There was concern that no reference was made in the Sea Fish Industry Authority's accounts to the liability to repay charges. The authority's auditors were aware of the potential liability and made inquiries in 1996 as to how that should be addressed in the accounts. They were advised by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food that it would not be appropriate to make any reference while issues about legality were still being examined and no decision had been taken on whether validating legislation should be introduced. It was also unclear as to who—Ministers or the SFIA—would have responsibility for any liability arising should it be concluded that the charges were more likely than not to have been unlawfully levied.
  The auditors raised the point again the following year. The authority sought a letter of comfort from the Ministry saying that, if it was concluded that there should be a refund of technical charges, responsibility for payment would rest with the Ministry. It was explained that that would not be appropriate because such a letter would require specific Treasury and parliamentary approval, and because the legal issues were still under review.
  Once the decision had been taken that the Government should seek to legislate to validate the charges retrospectively as soon as parliamentary time allowed, the likelihood of any contingent liability having to be met was largely removed. Therefore, it was not seen as appropriate to mention it in the accounts.
  744
  I stress a number of points that were made earlier in considering the Bill. It is not a vehicle for introducing financial assistance to the fisheries industry; the Government are making a bid for that under structural funds.
  Mr. Eric Forth: Is the Minister saying that the authority was advised that, on the assumption that the legislation that we are discussing would pass through all its stages in Parliament and receive Royal Assent, it was inappropriate to mention those items in the accounts? That seems a little previous, to put it mildly. Is there not, then, a danger of a gap between the giving of that advice and possible Royal Assent to the Bill?
  Mr. Morley: No, the advice was not based on the assumption that the right hon. Gentleman mentions. A decision had to be made in relation to liability and how it was to be dealt with. The legal advice was that the most appropriate way of dealing with it was through such a Bill being put to Parliament.
  As soon as lawyers concluded that, in all probability, the technical charge did not have a statutory basis, the SFIA was told to put a stop to it. The Ministry wrote to the SFIA on 3 May 1996 confirming the instruction given over the phone that day to cease levying the charge immediately. At that time, it was, of course, already well aware of the existence of concerns.
  It was subsequently decided that the charge should not be reintroduced as the nature of the grant scheme had changed and much less technical work was involved in processing applications. The Bill does not, therefore, authorise the making of any future charges and is limited to charges levied up to 3 May 1996.
  The charge concerned was a reasonable one in relation to the work that was carried out. It has never been challenged by anyone and no complaints about the charge have ever been received. I thank all the members of the Committee for dealing with what is a narrow and technical measure so speedily. I especially thank the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) for his able chairmanship of the Committee.
  7.59 pm
  Mr. Andrew George: I think that the House and those who follow the interests of the fishing industry will be disappointed that, as the Minister said, the Bill will not and should not be a vehicle to debate the necessary reintroduction of fishing safety grants.
  Mr. John Bercow: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance. A few moments ago, in his opening speech, the Minister said that a note on the legal advice that the Government had received on the Bill had been provided to Committee members and that a copy of it had been deposited in the Library. Are you aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the Library is unable to locate the said note? Should we not be provided with it as a matter of urgency and before the debate continues?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. I certainly shall not suspend the sitting. Those are not matters for the occupant of the Chair.
  Mr. Edward Leigh rose—
  Mr. Forth: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister himself raised as a matter material

  745
  to this debate on Third Reading that the legal advice was available to hon. Members in the Library. My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) has just checked with the Library, but the advice is not available. Therefore, progress of the—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but he is talking about a ministerial responsibility. It is nothing to do with the occupant of the Chair.
  Mr. Leigh: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have made that ruling, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not pursue the matter.
  Mr. Leigh: May I just ask a question, Mr. Deputy Speaker? Of course—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There are no more questions to be asked on the matter. I shall take points of order, but not questions. I do not think that we should pursue the matter, which is for the Minister deal with.
  Mr. George: As I was saying, the House will be disappointed that the Bill was not regarded as an opportunity for debate of the matter and as a vehicle for the reintroduction of fishing safety grants.
  Mr. Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. George: I shall finish my point, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind.
  The matters are deeply important to the industry, and the sooner they are attended to, the better. I am sure that the Minister will accept that.
  Mr. Leigh: Because of timetabling, we have only 40 minutes to discuss the Bill. The Minister is in the Chamber. He could intervene now and say that he will ensure that that legal advice is provided to the House before we finish the debate. [Interruption.] Will the hon. Gentleman, in his speech, try to convince the Minister to provide the legal advice to us now? The Minister said that it is in the Library, but it is not.
  Mr. George: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. As I was a member of the Committee considering this very important matter, I was a beneficiary of the legal advice, for which I am grateful to the Minister.
  Mr. Morley: I may be able to clarify the matter. However, I should first correct hon. Members who are talking about legal advice—I was talking about a précis of the legal advice. The convention is that Governments do not reveal the legal advice that they receive. My information is that the précis was placed in the Library, and I am, at this moment, making inquiries about the situation.
  Mr. George: I am grateful to the Minister for that clarification. I mentioned legal advice—whereas,
  746
  in Committee, I asked him for a précis of it. I am grateful to him for circulating it to Committee members, as he promised to do; it was much appreciated. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Bercow: It may come as a shock to the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), but some right. hon. and hon. Members think that it is incumbent upon them properly to scrutinise Government legislation. He had better get used to it, because there is much more scrutiny coming.
  Does the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. George) agree that it would be helpful if the Minister would tell the House when he believes that that summary note was deposited in the Library? The admirable and efficient Library staff looked askance at my request for it and were not conscious of the existence in the Library of such a document.
  Mr. George: That was not an intervention for me. However, I certainly appreciate the fact that, as the Minister promised, he provided to Committee members a précis of the legal advice, which I should be happy to share with other hon. Members. I am sure that the Minister would not wish to restrict me in doing that.
  In our previous consideration of the Bill, on Second Reading and in Committee, I contacted industry representatives both within my constituency and from the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations to check whether they felt very strongly that hon. Members should table amendments on the matter or that the House should be detained in considering it, to make certain that important legislation is properly scrutinised. I think that I can report to the House that the general feeling in the industry is that the Bill should be passed without unnecessary delay, as it is not causing vexation within the industry.
  In his speech, the Minister made a point about the Sea Fish Industry Authority not mentioning the problem in its annual report. In Committee, he said:
  However, it was not thought appropriate to make any reference to it, as no decision had been made at that time about how to deal with the issue.—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 14 March 2000; c. 16.]
  Similarly, in a promised reply on the matter to my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), the Minister wrote:
  This view would be consistent with "Statement of Standard Accounting Practice 18" and its successor "Financial Reporting Standard 12" which provide that in those cases where the probability of the ultimate outcome having a material effect on the financial statements (ie those of SFIA in this case) is remote, no disclosure of the contingent liability is required in the accounts.
  I think that anyone considering the matter, which involves a £7 million liability, would agree that it is a matter of public interest, and that those very guidance documents themselves have to be reviewed. It is a matter of public concern. I think that most people are surprised that the SFIA—no doubt after negotiating with Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food officials—did not feel that it was appropriate to refer to the matter in its 1996 annual report.
  Mr. David Heath: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that, although it was very helpful to receive the Minister's letter, the response—that it was considered to be "too remote a possibility" to

  747
  warrant inclusion in the annual report and accounts—was quite extraordinary. If the possibility really were so remote, is it not rather surprising that we are debating legislation to deal with it? I think that the charges should have been in the annual report and accounts, and I am very surprised that the advice to Ministers was otherwise.
  Mr. George: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for endorsing the line that I am taking. Perhaps Ministers and officials should reflect on the lessons to be learned from this rather shabby affair. I think that the Minister fully admits that mistakes were made and identified in 1996, before the Government came into office. I should hope, therefore, that he will be able to take an objective view of the matter, and perhaps to accept the fact that—in the light of an unacceptable failure to report something that really should have been in the public domain—both accounting practices and the responsibility of Government organisations should be reviewed.
  As for the legislation's retrospective nature, perhaps we should have an opportunity retrospectively to review the success of safety grants, which are very important to the industry itself. Perhaps we shall have another opportunity to debate that matter—which I think the Minister will accept is of very deep concern to the industry. Indeed, the unacceptable loss of life in the industry deeply concerns fishing communities around the coast of the United Kingdom. I should hope that we will have an opportunity for such a debate, perhaps in Government time, in the not-too-distant future.
  As I said, I asked the Minister to circulate a précis of the legal advice. However, having seen it I am surprised that it took until the Bill was considered in Committee before we could prise that information out of the Minister. The information helped to support his line, which I think we all accepted, that, with the Government's heavily clogged legislative programme, he would not unnecessarily—purely for the sheer hell of it—introduce new legislation. The précis of the legal advice could have been provided earlier. That said, I am grateful to have it, even though we received it rather late.
  My right hon. and hon. Friends and I have no objection to ensuring that this important Bill concludes its stages in the House this evening.
  8.10 pm
  Mr. Eric Forth: The more that we hear of the Bill, the more obvious it is that it is a bit of a muddle. It started out as a cosy little consensual matter that was sold to the House as being of little import and almost rather trivial. It was one of those dubious measures that had all-party agreement. Now even the Liberal Democrats—the friends of the Government—have some doubts, although some intimate correspondence has obviously passed between the Minister and his friends in the Liberal Democrat party from which the rest of us have been excluded, because the relevant document is apparently not in the Library. I shall come back to that in a moment.
  In one of his moments of transparency and insight in Committee, the Minister said:
  The Bill is retrospective. As I said on Second Reading, the Government do not take lightly the introduction of retrospective legislation.—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 14 March 2000; c. 4.]
  748
  That point has dogged the Bill from the start. In fairness to the Government, they have made no secret of the fact that it was retrospective, but, as the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. George) has just said, the argument is whether retrospective legislation is justified to solve a problem that may not have existed. Even now we have not got to the bottom of that. I certainly have not, because I have not yet seen the note on the legal advice that the members of the Committee have seen, but that is not yet in the Library as the Minister claimed that it was. The rest of us who were not on the Committee are in the dark about the content of the note.
  Mr. Bercow: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Minister's letter to the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. George), together with the accompanying paper, was dispatched on 2 May? In that letter, the Minister said that he was arranging for a copy of the note to be placed in the Library. Can my right hon. Friend think of any good reason why 20 days should elapse without that flimsy little note being deposited in the Library?
  Mr. Forth: Yes; Government incompetence comes at the top of my list. That is the most obvious explanation. Conspiracy would be second on my list. The Minister wants to appear, on the record, to be open with the House, but on the slightest investigation that appears to be a false impression.
  Mr. Leigh: It is worse than that. I have obtained a copy of the letter in question—not from the Library, but from my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) on the Front Bench. The Minister said in the letter that he had arranged—not that he was arranging—for a copy to be placed in the Library. That was on 2 May. What is going on?
  Mr. Forth: We must get to the bottom of that. I shall come back to the issue when a little more time has elapsed. We shall see whether the letter emerges from the Library. For the moment, I want to go on to some other serious matters that arose during the previous proceedings on the Bill.
  The Minister has revealed something else relatively new to us today. I suspect that the issue was preying on his and his officials' minds and he thought that he had better get it out in the open before it was revealed in some other way, although the more that I look at the Bill and the more that we consider it on Third Reading, the more I suspect that it will need to be examined pretty closely in another place. We may be forced to accept retrospection, but I do not know whether it will go down well at the other end of the building.
  As far as I could follow him, the Minister seemed to say that there had been a running debate between the Sea Fish Industry Authority and its auditors about its accounts and whether the charges should be reflected. He then appeared to say that the matter was regarded as being in suspension in some way, pending legal advice. When the legal advice finally emerged, the Minister said, as far as I could tell, that because the matter should be legislated on, there was no need to act on the accounts. I thought that he then said that any need to reflect the matter in the accounts, about which the auditors had previously expressed disquiet, was rendered otiose by the legislation.

  749
  That worried me, because it seemed to imply that the auditors, the authority or the Ministry—or all of them—had satisfied themselves that, on the possibility of legislation reaching its final stage and receiving Royal Assent, no further action need be taken. I suspect that if the matter were looked at in more detail than we can manage this evening, because of the Government's vicious and arrogant guillotine, a worrying lacuna would emerge. We are dealing with public finance, the auditing of accounts and the relationship between a Government Department dispensing taxpayers' money and a Government agency—the Sea Fish Industry Authority—spending that money. That should be above suspicion, but it appears that there has been a certain amount of foot dragging, to say the least, and that the relationship between the authority, its auditors and the Department was either overly cosy, overly mutually congratulatory or less than rigorous—I put it no more strongly than that.
  Mr. David Heath: I do not know why the right hon. Gentleman suggests that that lacuna might appear this evening on further consideration when it clearly appeared in Committee, when we laid bare the deficiencies of the audit process—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Forth: Not bare enough, as I think one of my hon. Friends behind me said. I have looked at the Committee proceedings, and pretty flimsy and slender they are, because the Minister pulled the same trick on the Committee that he tried to pull on the House tonight—because he said over and over again that the Bill was a narrow and technical measure, he thought he could escape effective scrutiny. That has happened throughout. The Liberal Democrats have obviously fallen for that—if I may use the expression—hook, line and sinker! I have been waiting to say that for some time.
  The Bill turns out to be not narrow and technical, but retrospective. It seeks to cover up a gap in the accounting practices that has existed for some time and was sufficient to worry the auditors, which in turn was sufficient for officials to want to put it in the Minister's speech this evening to try to pre-empt the sort of investigation that the House would normally want to conduct. We are now unable to conduct such an investigation because the Government have guillotined the Bill.
  A very worrying pattern is beginning to emerge. I was unable to take part in the guillotine debate because so many of my colleagues were so angry about the motion that I was elbowed out of it. In that debate, my hon. Friends asked why on earth the Government saw fit to guillotine this innocent little Bill—as it was thought at the time—of all Bills. Belatedly, in this guillotined Third Reading debate, the truth is beginning to emerge. The Government are desperate that the matter should not be looked at properly. They skated through the Committee stage on the basis that the Bill was narrow and technical. The Liberal Democrats were easily satisfied—as ever they are, I suspect, by their friends in the Government—but we now find that there is a real danger that something very nasty and rather unpleasant is emerging. However, it is too late.
  Mr. Andrew George: The right hon. Gentleman is right; something unpleasant is emerging. It was all the fault of the Tories. We thought that we should allow them to get off lightly.
  Mr. Forth: I am intrigued that the Liberal Democrats latest political stance seems to be letting the last Tory Government get away with something of which they disapproved. I for one am very much in favour of being critical of the last Conservative Government where that is appropriate, and I do that occasionally. However, that is not the point—which is that the Minister referred earlier to the relationship between the authority, the auditor and the Ministry. As I am not yet in possession of the legal advice, I am unable to take the matter further. The irony is that Committee members, including my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss), have the document, but no one else does. The House is unable to make a judgment on the crucial role of that legal advice.
  In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire said:
  On Second Reading, the Minister was pressed to convey to the House the basis of his legal advice. He declined to do so then, and appears unwilling to do so today.—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 14 March 2000; c. 5.]
  My hon. Friend pressed the Minister, and only under that pressure did the he finally agree that the House could have a note giving a version of that advice.
  Mr. Bercow: I am concerned at the attitude of the Minister and of the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. George). Did my right hon. Friend notice that the hon. Member for St. Ives, having made a truly risible speech, thought it was funny that my right hon. Friend had not received the note? Despite having ample time to do so, the Minister has still failed to tell the House when exactly the instruction was given for the deposit of the note in the Library and what steps, if any, he took to check that that instruction had been carried out.
  Mr. Forth: If I were a suspicious type, I would think that the Minister and his officials were watching the clock, conscious that if they spin this out for another 20 minutes they will get off the hook because the Government guillotine will then fall on the debate. At that point, the House will no longer be able to hold the Government to account. That is a matter of great regret to me, and the Government cannot be allowed to get away with it. I suspect that those in another place will want to take a much more rigorous look at the issues than this House has done hitherto.
  The Minister said earlier that there was a question of whether the Government should seek to legislate to remove the contingent liability. That brings another factor into play, and it may be one of the reasons for the Bill. In Committee, the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) said, concerning the Minister,
  I still think that there are considerable gaps in his explanation of the advice that he has received about the necessity for these retrospective provisions.
  The doubt arose on the narrow point whether a Minister of the Crown had the powers that were delegated to the Sea Fish Industry Authority at the time.

  751
  I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman believes that he has received a satisfactory answer to that. He added that the Minister should share his advice, in whatever form, with the Committee so that it could consider the Bill properly and
  advise colleagues in the House who will have to consider it in due course.—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 14 March 2000; c. 10.]
  The hon. Gentleman—playing the part that he should play—raised an important point in anticipation of Report stage of the Bill. Not only has there been no Report, but Third Reading has been arrogantly reduced to almost nothing. As a result, neither the hon. Gentleman nor I have been able to get an explanation of the legal advice, which has still not appeared.
  Mr. Morley: I appreciate that a lot of bogus points are being made. Nevertheless, there was no obligation on me as Minister to provide that advice, but I did so in an attempt to be open and transparent with the Committee. Also, the information from my officials is that they cannot trace the document in the Library of the House. In that respect, I apologise profoundly for the statements I have given. I will make sure that copies are placed in the Library tomorrow.
  Mr. Leigh: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There are limits to how much the House of Commons will take. The Minister has said that the legal advice is there when it is not, but the Government intend to proceed with their timetable. We should suspend this debate until we can get the legal advice—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. That matter has been dealt with by the Chair.
  Mr. Forth: I will contain my anger and say to the Minister that he is inviting—
  Mr. Leigh: Judicial review.
  Mr. Forth: Further down the track, perhaps, but, before then, the hon. Gentleman is inviting the other place to look at this matter seriously. The other place may be able to get hold of this advice, although the House of Commons has not. Hopefully, it will be in the public domain by the time the Bill passes to another place, where I hope it is given a thorough going-over. The Minister has been complacent and has not attempted to answer the questions of the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome, who anticipated Report and Third Reading. He thought that we would have much more information than the Committee did when it gave its perfunctory examination of the Bill.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I would be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman turned his mind to the contents of the Bill.
  Mr. Forth: I thought that I had been doing just that.
  Mr. Maclean: Will my right hon. Friend comment on the fact that this is retrospective legislation? It is seldom
  752
  that this House passes such legislation in such a slap-happy manner, and without having before it the documents described by the Minister.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) responds, I would he grateful if he remembered that the House has dealt thoroughly with that topic as well.
  Mr. Forth: Indeed, and I have been trying to pick up on points raised by the Minister. I am a traditionalist about Parliament, and I thought that these were called debates. In a debate, one listens to what the Minister or other hon. Members say, and then deals with those points. If the Minister has led me astray, I can only apologise. He referred to the auditor and to contingent liability. He mentioned the note, which he has admitted bare-facedly is not in the possession of the House, putting us all at a disadvantage.
  This has been a shocking episode and the House should be ashamed of itself for allowing it to happen. However, as part of our great parliamentary process, if we in this House are unable to deal adequately with this matter due to the arrogance of the Government, there is a further parliamentary stage which I almost invite to deal with it. I shall send a copy of the Bill to my friends in another place and invite them to look more closely at it.
  Mr. Bercow: Is my right hon. Friend as shocked as I am to learn, at 8.29 pm, after more than half an hour's debate on the Bill, that despite an extensive search by the experienced staff of the Library no record of the deposit of the legal note to which the Minister referred can be found?
  Mr. Forth: The Minister has admitted that the text of the letter claimed that the arrangement had been made as long as three weeks ago, but that that is not the case. The hon. Gentleman was then briefed to tell us that the letter was available, but that is not the case. The matter requires a top-level inquiry and I hope that it will be conducted by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, to whom I am sure we will all write about this disgraceful episode. I hope that we do not get the Minister into too much trouble, although he looks casual about it now. He will not be smiling so much when we hold his feet to the parliamentary fire.
  Tonight's proceedings have been a sordid little episode and the Minister will regret his part in it. I intend to vote against the Bill to show my disgust at what has happened.
  8.31 pm
  Mr. David Maclean: At least the Minister had the courtesy and the decency to apologise immediately when he realised that he was in grave danger of misleading the House. If he had not done so before the debate ended, I would have tabled an early-day motion tomorrow, condemning the Minister for misleading the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Hon. Members may say that, but misleading the House is a serious charge and I know that the Minister would not do so deliberately. We have had excessive levity from Labour Members tonight, who consider the fact that the Minister referred to an important letter that is not available to the House as a matter of no importance. I know that we have discussed that and points of order have been raised, so I shall merely

  753
  say that I thought that it was a convention of the House that if a Minister referred to a document it had to be produced. I understand that Madam Speaker takes a dim view when that does not happen. [Interruption.] If Labour Members think that that does not matter—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is a serious matter and the right hon. Gentleman should now direct his remarks to the contents of the Bill.
  Mr. Maclean: I am happy to do so, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Indeed, that was my intention on attending the Chamber tonight. We all thought that the purpose of the Bill was to ensure the validity of certain charges levied by the Sea Fish Industry Authority and by the Herring Industry Board. The latter was abolished in 1981, but its liabilities were transferred to the authority. The Bill relates to charges made by the authority in its administration of certain schemes of financial assistance which had effect under part II of the Fisheries Act 1981.
  The Sea Fish Industry Authority was instructed on 3 May 1996 to cease levying such charges because of some advice, a précis of which we have not seen but which may have advised that it was unlawful to levy those charges. That was the issue that I intended to debate on Third Reading tonight. However, in view of what the Minister has said, the suspicion is now gaining ground that the Bill has been included in the timetable motion tonight, and debate on it has been deliberately curtailed, because there are stinking fish out there that are now coming to light. The Government want to curtail discussion because they are concerned that we might manage to get our hands on the précis of the legal advice before the debate ends and discover what the auditors have advised. The debate has been curtailed for the sake of a cover-up to protect the backs of some people who may have been responsible for the administration of the scheme.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) has suggested that the Bill has been put through with undue haste so as to give retrospective cover to executive decisions that were made about the scheme. Those decisions may have been right, but we can no longer debate that point. On the other hand, the charges may have contravened the powers of the original authority and the Sea Fish Industry Authority may have had no powers to make charges on the fishing boats that it was inspecting. I understand that the total grants allocated since the scheme started total some £88,766,031, including those previously approved by the Herring Industry Board and the White Fish Authority for fishing vessel safety schemes. Of course, the charges that MAFF would have made in return do not amount to anything like that sum. The charges were small in comparison, and were described as technical charges relating to the inspection of the vessels.
  I am concerned that a Bill that we were told dealt retrospectively with some small technical charges may be a front for a cover-up. If so, the House should be aware of that before the Bill is bounced through tonight. Perhaps that is why the Government have been so keen on this draconian guillotine. We have not even had a Report stage for the Bill, and there certainly was no debate on it before it became the subject of the guillotine motion tonight.
  754
  The Bill took less than one and a half hours in Committee, but the Government want it guillotined in 45 minutes to prevent discussion on it. Why? It cannot be because the Government are embarrassed about the mistakes, because they took place under a previous Government. Therefore, the Government cannot wish to hide from the public the fact that since 1981 previous Governments may have administered erroneously a scheme that is now deemed ultra vires. If that were the case, the Government would boast about it. They would say, "The previous Government got it all wrong, and so did their civil servants and their legal advice. We are now sorting it out—look how good we are." The Government would normally take that line, but tonight they say, "Let's not discuss the Bill. Let's bash it through."
  The Minister rattled off his speech and I am grateful that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst is fast on the uptake on such matters and was able to recall so many of the key words from the Minister. My right hon. Friend was thus able to challenge the Minister in his usual erudite fashion, and I followed his points with interest. I cannot go into the detail of the conspiracy that my right hon. Friend suspects in this matter, because I could not follow the Minister's arguments at the breakneck speed at which he delivered them.
  I know that some of my hon. Friends wish to contribute to the debate and to comment on the loss of the important legal précis.
  I conclude with a point on retrospection made by the Home Secretary in 1986. He stated:
  The Government have become slap happy in the use of retrospective legislation.—[Official Report, 23 June 1986; Vol. 100, c. 86.]
  If the right hon. Gentleman were here tonight he would recognise a slap-happy Government who put through retrospective legislation and laugh when documents are unavailable for the House to study.
  I know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you are familiar with international opinion on such matters. You will know that legal opinion in Australia holds that retrospective legislation has "strong negative connotations". We have seen those negative connotations tonight. I came here to vote the Bill through, but instead I shall support my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst in the Lobby. We must get to the bottom of the matter.
  8.39 pm
  Mr. Edward Leigh: My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) asked why the Government have brought in this retrospective legislation. The answer can be found in the explanatory notes to the Bill. Paragraph 17 states:
  The total value of the charges levied by the Herring Industry Board and the Sea Fish Industry Authority was about £7.3 million covering some 13,000 cases. By ensuring that these were validly levied the Bill will secure a possible saving in public expenditure in avoiding any obligation that might otherwise arise to fund repayments.
  That raises a serious question about the retrospective nature of the Bill. It seems to be generally accepted that the legal advice—which is not yet available to the House—states that the Government, and not the public, are responsible for the misdirection with regard to these charges. I fully accept that the fault may lie with

  755
  Governments other than this one. [Interruption.] I am not trying to be partisan. This Government are trying to put right law that has caused financial loss to members of the public. In effect, Governments have acted illegally in the past.
  However, the Government do not admit the blame associated with being the successor to previous Governments' faults. They do not want any charge to be levied against public funds. For people who have suffered financially, that is rather shoddy. It would be far better for the Government to admit that a mistake was made—
  It being five hours after the commencement of proceedings on the allocation of time motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to Order [this day], put forthwith the Question necessary for the disposal of proceedings to be concluded at that hour.
  Motion made, and Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Mrs. McGuire.]
  The House divided: Ayes 313, Noes 1.

  Division No. 203]

  [8.42 pm

  AYES

  Ainger, Nick

  Casale, Roger

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Alexander, Douglas

  Clapham, Michael

  Allen, Graham

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shield)

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Ashton, Joe

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Austin, John

  Clelland, David

  Ballard, Jackie

  Clwyd, Ann

  Banks, Tony

  Coaker, Vernon

  Barnes, Harry

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Bayley, Hugh

  Cohen, Harry

  Beard, Nigel

  Coleman, Iain

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Connarty, Michael

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Corbett, Robin

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Cotter, Brian

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Cousins, Jim

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

  Crausby, David

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Cummings, John

  Berry, Roger

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

  Betts, Clive

  Blackman, Liz

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Darvill, Keith

  Blizzard, Bob

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Davidson, Ian

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Denham, John

  Breed, Colin

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Doran, Frank

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Dowd, Jim

  Browne, Desmond

  Drew, David

  Burden, Richard

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Burgon, Colin

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Edwards, Huw

  Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

  Efford, Clive

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Ennis, Jeff

  Etherington, Bill

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Cann, Jamie

  Fisher, Mark

  Caplin, Ivor

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  756

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Laxton, Bob

  Flint, Caroline

  Lepper, David

  Flynn, Paul

  Levitt, Tom

  Follett, Barbara

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Fyfe, Maria

  Linton, Martin

  Galloway, George

  Livsey, Richard

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Gidley, Sandra

  Lock, David

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  McCabe, Steve

  Godsiff, Roger

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Goggins, Paul

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Gorrie, Donald

  Macdonald, Calum

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Grocott, Bruce

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Grogan, John

  MacShane, Denis

  Hain, Peter

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  McWalter, Tony

  Hanson, David

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Mallaber, Judy

  Harvey, Nick

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Martlew, Eric

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Maxton, John

  Heppell, John

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Hesford, Stephen

  Meale, Alan

  Hill, Keith

  Merron, Gillian

  Hinchliffe, David

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Hoey, Kate

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Mitchell, Austin

  Hope, Phil

  Moffatt, Laura

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

  Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Morley, Elliot

  Howells, Dr Kim

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

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Mountford, Kali

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Mudie, George

  Hurst, Alan

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Hutton, John

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Norris, Dan

  Illsley, Eric

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Olner, Bill

  Jamieson, David

  O'Neill, Martin

  Jenkins, Brian

  Öpik, Lembit

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Pearson, Ian

  Pendry, Tom

  Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Pike, Peter L

  Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Plaskitt, James

  Pond, Chris

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Pope, Greg

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Pound, Stephen

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Keetch, Paul

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Khabra, Piara S

  Purchase, Ken

  Kidney, David

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Quinn, Lawrie

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Radice, Rt Hon Giles

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Rammell, Bill

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Rapson, Syd

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Raynsford, Nick

  757

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Rendel, David

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Rooney, Terry

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Roy, Frank

  Timms, Stephen

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Salter, Martin

  Todd, Mark

  Sanders, Adrian

  Touhig, Don

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Trickett, Jon

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Tyler, Paul

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  Tynan, Bill

  Singh, Marsha

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Skinner, Dennis

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Watts, David

  Webb, Steve

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Soley, Clive

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan, (Swansea W)

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Stevenson, George

  Willis, Phil

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Winnick, David

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Wood, Mike

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Woolas, Phil

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Worthington, Tony

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Wray, James

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Stringer, Graham

  Wyatt, Derek

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Stunell, Andrew

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Mrs. Anne McGuire and

  Mr. Tony McNulty.

  NOES

  Leigh, Edward

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Mr. Eric Forth and

  Mr. David Maclean.

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

  Royal Parks (Trading) Bill and Television Licences (Disclosure of Information) Bill (Allocation of Time)
  8.54 pm
  The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Janet Anderson): I beg to move,
  That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Royal Parks (Trading) Bill and the Television Licences (Disclosure of Information) Bill—

  Royal Parks (Trading) Bill and Television Licences (Disclosure of Information) Bill (Allocation of Time)

    Timetable
    1.—(1) Remaining proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading of the Royal Parks (Trading) Bill shall be completed at today's sitting and brought to a conclusion (if not previously concluded) four hours after the commencement of proceedings on this Motion.
    (2) Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading of the Television Licences (Disclosure of Information) Bill shall be completed at today's sitting and brought to a conclusion (if not previously concluded) five hours after the commencement of proceedings on this Motion.

    Questions to be put
    2.—(1) This paragraph applies for the purpose of bringing proceedings on either Bill to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1.
    (2) The Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

    (a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;

    (b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;

    (c) the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown;

    (d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded.

    (3) On a Motion made for a new Clause or Schedule, the Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.
    (4) If two or more Questions would otherwise fall to be put under sub-paragraph (2)(c) on amendments moved or Motions made by a Minister of the Crown, the Speaker shall instead put a single Question in relation to those amendments or Motions.

    Miscellaneous
    3. Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply at today's sitting to proceedings to which this Order applies.
    4. Proceedings to which this Order applies shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
    5. No Motion shall be made to alter the order in which proceedings on either Bill are taken or to recommit either Bill.
    6. No dilatory Motion shall be made in relation to either Bill except by a Minister of the Crown; and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
    7. If at today's sitting—

    (a) a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 24 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) has been stood over to Seven o'clock; but

    (b) proceedings to which this Order applies have begun before then,

    proceedings on that Motion shall stand postponed until the conclusion of those proceedings.
    8. Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply to either Bill.

    Supplemental orders
    9. The proceedings on any motion made by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall (if not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced; and Standing Order No. 15(1) shall apply to those proceedings.
    10. If at today's sitting the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the time at which any proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion under this Order, no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.
    I shall speak only briefly as the House has much important business before it this evening. The two Bills with which we are concerned are important in the Government's view, and there are particular reasons why we want to see them complete their stages of consideration as rapidly as possibly.
    The Television Licences (Disclosure of Information) Bill facilitates the granting of free television licences to the over-75s as from 1 April. The need for those new powers is pressing. The Government's announcement of free television licences for people aged 75 or over has been widely welcomed by hon. Members on both sides and will help some of the most vulnerable members of the community. Without the Bill, elderly, and often frail, claimants could be put to considerable inconvenience in claiming their entitlement. The cost of administering the concession would also be far higher than under our proposals.
    The second Bill is the Royal Parks (Trading) Bill, and my hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts will deal with its further stages. It will be regarded by most right hon. and hon. Members on both sides as long overdue and uncontroversial. It deals with abuses and problems caused by unauthorised traders in the royal parks. It has the support of those on the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Front Benches.
    Mr. Eric Forth: So what?
    Janet Anderson: The right hon. Gentleman is in a minority. If, by his actions later this evening, he shows that he wants to consign tourists to London to eating dodgy hamburgers sold by dubious illegal traders in the royal parks, he will do the tourist industry a serious injustice. He will have plenty of time later to elaborate on his views.
    Mr. John Bercow: Can the Minister tell us whether the Leader of the House has been informed of the displeasure expressed by Conservative Members about her failure to move the first allocation of time motion, despite her presence in the Palace of Westminster and the fact that she has voted? Can the Minister also tell us why the right hon. Lady failed to move this second motion?
    Janet Anderson: My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is always aware of what is going on in the Chamber. I am moving the motion because both Bills are the business of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. It may have escaped the hon. Gentleman's attention that I am a Minister in that Department.
    The need for new powers is pressing if we are to deal with the abuse of illegal trading in the royal parks. The health, safety and well-being of visitors must be protected, along with the rights and expectations of authorised
    760
    traders. The peaceful atmosphere of the royal parks must be maintained. The Bill will protect the interests of members of the public who visit the royal parks. I urge hon. Members to support the motion.
    8.57 pm
    Mr. John Greenway: I make it clear that we support both the Bills mentioned in the guillotine motion. Like the Minister, I want the maximum opportunity for debate on the important issues that arise from the Bills and that are set down for discussion on Report.
    Earlier today, my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) set out in some detail the Opposition view on the use of the guillotine. We shall reinforce that view in the Division Lobby at the end of this debate.
    The previous debate was characterised by accusation and counter-accusation about who is to blame for the situation in which the Government find themselves. Our argument is not with the Bills, although some of my right hon. and hon. Friends will rightly wish to discuss some points of concern. However, this is the fifth or sixth Bill that I have dealt with in this Session as a Front-Bench spokesman on Home Affairs or Culture, Media and Sport. I must conclude that the Government's legislative programme is overloaded. During my 13 years as a Member, it has been unprecedented for the House to be asked to give Third Readings to no fewer than four Bills in one evening. If anyone thinks that blame attaches to any of my right hon. or hon. Friends for frustrating progress, that is not true.
    The Royal Parks (Trading) Bill received its Second Reading in Committee, so this debate and our proceedings last Wednesday offer the only opportunities for hon. Members to discuss the measure. Although we have made our views abundantly clear from the Opposition Front Bench—as the Minister acknowledged—the Bill contains important issues of principle, such as the seizure and confiscation of assets and the question of penalties, which hon. Members obviously want to discuss.
    Further important and fundamental issues are involved in the Government's proposals to implement their pledge to give all those aged over 74 a free television licence. As the Minister will know, during our extremely productive Committee proceedings, we managed to resolve—or make progress on—several matters of concern to right hon. and hon. Members. However, it is clear that there should be an opportunity to debate those points on Report, and for those Members who were not members of the Standing Committee to have the opportunity to put their threepenn'orth—as we would say in Yorkshire—into the debate on those important matters.
    The Opposition formally do not approve the use of the guillotine. I hope that, during the next four to five hours, we shall be able to debate issues on both Bills that are of concern to hon. Members, even though we support the Bills. It is a sad occasion when measures that are formally supported by the Opposition nevertheless become the subject of a guillotine—not because hon. Members want to take time debating the issues, but because the Government have introduced too much legislation.
    9.2 pm
    Mr. Patrick Nicholls: I have been a Member for about 17 years. During that time, there have been several timetable motions, but I have never spoken

    761
    on them—either at my own desire or at the behest of the Whips. I am moved to do so tonight and I make no apology for that.
    When the Minister opened the debate, she made my point for me. She seems to believe that because the Opposition support the Bills, that is the end of the matter—as we support the Bills, it would be quite inappropriate to detain the House by actually examining their content.
    Earlier this evening, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) pointed out that he was a traditionalist. I join him in that. It was my impression that I came to the House to scrutinise legislation—that is why I draw my princely salary. However, if I thought that there was common ground between myself and Labour Members, I was quickly disabused of that idea shortly after the general election.
    I recall the last appearance—for the time being—of my right hon. Friend at the Dispatch Box when we were considering the Bill to abolish the assisted places scheme. I cannot remember whether we were discussing a guillotine motion or whether we were asking the then Leader of the House, now the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, for time properly to debate the issue. However, she used a phrase that I found absolutely chilling. As a Member of the House—as a traditionalist—I still find it chilling. She said that we did not need any more time to debate the measure because the people had spoken.
    That phrase was used to advance a proposition on a Bill that would take from parents of modest means the ability to send their children to some of the best schools in the country—in breach of a specific assurance to the contrary given by a Labour shadow Front-Bench spokesman when Labour was in opposition. All that was cast to the wind.
    As I recall it, that Bill's First Reading was on a Monday and it was proposed that its Second Reading and remaining stages in the Commons should take place the same week. However—I remember it as clearly as if it were yesterday—hon. Members came into the House, as they will later, tapping their watches and pointing at the clock in the extraordinary belief that for £48,000 a year all they had to do was come in and tap their watches at 10 o'clock at night, and they would then be entitled to go home. We pointed out to them that they were not going home then, any more than they will go home at 10 o'clock tonight. We have a duty in the House of Commons to scrutinise the legislation that is before us.
    I remember that, on that occasion, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst made a speech of commendable brevity; it went on for no more than 90 minutes. He pointed out that the issues would have to be dealt with the following week when we had another two days to debate the Bill. I am reminded that the debate did not take place under a guillotine motion, but the principle holds true.
    The view, "The people have spoken; no scrutiny is necessary; can we please be paid our salaries and go?" was expressed three years ago, and we would like to think that, in the intervening period, even this Government have begun to understand that we engage in a two-part process—they propose and we scrutinise. We have a vote and we come second, and that is the way it is for the time
    762
    being. However, they do not recognise that process, and they do not recognise how draconian a guillotine motion is. If someone wants to scrutinise a Bill even though they agree with it, the Government say, "Let's have a guillotine motion."
    It is worth remembering how draconian guillotine motions are. The 22nd edition of "Erskine May", the guide to parliamentary practice—I doubt whether practice has changed from that described in the previous 21 editions—states that guillotine motions
    may be regarded as the extreme limit to which procedure goes in affirming the rights of the majority at the expense of the minorities of the House, and it cannot be denied that they are capable of being used in such a way as to upset the balance, generally so carefully preserved, between the claims of business and the rights of debate.
    Mr. Bercow: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is imperative that we should have the maximum time to consider the two Bills because there are no fewer than 13 amendments, new clauses and new schedules tabled for debate and because the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting and the Minister for the Arts have on various occasions referred to dodgy burgers and rip-off traders? That may be a source of hilarity to the hon. Lady, but Ministers have not troubled themselves to offer any evidence for their charges against members of the public and traders who do not have the opportunity tonight or at any other time in a public forum to defend themselves.
    Mr. Nicholls: My hon. Friend is exactly right. The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting did not make a speech of any great length but, even in her short address, she managed to introduce the concept of forcibly feeding people burgers. I do not go to the London parks very often—perhaps, you do, Mr. Deputy Speaker—but I have heard no reports of people being forcibly fed burgers. I have carefully read the Royal Parks (Trading) Bill to see whether it contains any provisions to prevent the forcible feeding of burgers. If that practice is going on in London parks, there is nothing in the Bill to stop it. However, the Minister introduced the concept as justification for the Government's motion.
    Mr. Bercow: I am sorry to trouble my hon. Friend again, because he has dealt eloquently with my intervention. He knows that the Opposition support this Bill and the Television Licences (Disclosure of Information) Bill. However, if Ministers are to make charges against people, the least they should do is provide evidence of the health-damaging properties of the burgers in question. They have not done so. The Minister for the Arts should also provide evidence of the allegedly rip-off prices that he mentioned. Under interrogation the other day he palpably failed to do that.
    Mr. Nicholls: My hon. Friend is exactly right and he anticipates the remarks that I shall make shortly. The Bill involves issues relating to liberty and people's capacity to pursue a humble calling in their own way without the nanny state bearing down on them. However, if I am not careful, my hon. Friend will lead me astray—quite unintentionally, I am sure—and divert me from the sequence of my argument.
    A few moments ago, I was saying that guillotines have their place. Of course they do, otherwise I would not have voted for them over the years. However, there is no doubt

    763
    that the authorities state plainly that the use of the guillotine is draconian. I have a list of all the measures that have been guillotined since 1945. I shall not detain the House by going through them at great length, but it is instructive to examine some to give an idea of the gravity of measures which justify guillotining.
    In the 1946–47 Session, the Transport Bill and the iron and steel legislation were subject to the guillotine procedure, as was the Housing Rents and Repairs Bill in 1953. In the 1971–72 Session, the European Communities Bill was subject to a guillotine. Indeed, there could be no more appropriate measure to be guillotined, as it dealt with a major constitutional issue in a way which, in retrospect, we know was profoundly misjudged.
    Mr. Michael Fabricant: Will my hon. Friend give the House an idea of how long those Bills were in Committee? Is he aware that the Royal Parks (Trading) Bill was in Committee for only 35 minutes, so probably deserved greater scrutiny on the Floor of the House?
    Mr. Nicholls: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right. Indeed, one could make such a point without arguing for any particular brief on what the European Communities Bill did. At least it was acknowledged then that a draconian measure that would severely limit our ability to exert our sovereignty had been debated for a long time before being subject to a guillotine.
    Mr. Owen Paterson rose—
    Mr. Nicholls: I shall give way to my hon. Friend in a moment.
    Another Bill in the 1971–72 Session which was thought appropriate for the guillotine procedure was the Counter-Inflation (Temporary Provisions) Bill. My hon. Friend is twitching.
    Mr. Paterson: I wanted to intervene when the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) was in the Chamber. Sadly, however, he has just left. My hon. Friend is getting dangerously close to the hon. Gentleman's argument that there is a case for guillotine motions on what he described as important measures. Does he agree that that puts power back in the hands of the Executive, as they, not Members of Parliament, decide what measures to introduce and which are important?
    Mr. Nicholls: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right. I hope that he was not criticising the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) for leaving, as the hon. Gentleman has been in the House many years and sometimes has to leave in the middle of our deliberations.
    The hon. Gentleman may have been here in 1972, when the Counter-Inflation (Temporary Provisions) Bill was subject to a guillotine. In passing, as we remember from the history books, I am delighted that some hon. Members, perhaps including the hon. Gentleman, insisted on that procedure for that ludicrous legislation, which said that one could legislate and order prices to go down when the market was driving them up. It is quite understandable that such lunacy should have been subject to the guillotine.
    Bringing matters up to date, crucial constitutional measures that have been guillotined recently include the Prevention of Terrorism (Additional Powers) Bill and,
    764
    since the last election, the Firearms (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill and the Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill. The European Communities (Amendment) Bill was guillotined, demonstrating that Europe, or rather the European Union—at least for the time being—is always with us. The Government of Wales Bill, the Northern Ireland Bill and the Human Rights Bill were also guillotined. That Bill, which became the Human Rights Act 1998, needed to be guillotined to be driven through the House, and as the Government will discover in a few short months, it will play havoc with this country's legal system.
    The list includes a number of substantial Bills dealing with the future of the country, its identity and its constitution. Joining the list of all those important Bills that have gone through the House since the war is the Royal Parks (Trading) Bill. We are debating a proposal to guillotine a Bill dealing with the activities of hamburger salesmen. The Government say that if we accept that the Bill is correct in principle, no scrutiny is necessary.
    Let us examine the matters that we shall consider tonight, after the guillotine motion has been approved—on the assumption that it is approved. We shall discuss the seizure provisions. Government Members may ask whether those matter. Yes, they do. There is a peculiar meanness about the way in which the provisions have been drafted. We are not dealing with major capitalists, extremely efficient makers of money or the nouveaux riches glitterati whose friends Labour Members are these days. We are speaking of people with a much humbler calling, who make a living selling hamburgers.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are discussing the allocation of time for the Bill. We are not dealing with the content of the Bill at this stage.
    Mr. Nicholls: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My point, in summary, is that when we get to the detail of the Bill, we will see that we are speaking about depriving people of their livelihood. If we go down that road, we need time for the debate.
    What would be lost by debating these matters in detail? After all, the time now is 9.16 pm. Speaking for myself, and perhaps for some of my hon. Friends, I do not expect to work normal office hours for the salary that the state pays me. Underlining the ethos of using the guillotine on tiny measures such as this Bill is the belief among Labour Members that debate, let alone debate out of office hours, is quite unnecessary.
    There is even an hon. Lady who says that she will give up her membership of Parliament because she finds that it does not fit in with family life. I find it extraordinary that when we do a job as big as the job that we should be doing in the House—scrutinising legislation—hon. Members say that we should be paid an abnormally high salary for working normal office hours.
    Even though the principle of the Bill is agreed, it contains measures that deserve to be scrutinised. The House should devote sufficient time to that. I do not see what the problem is. On several occasions in recent weeks, I and my hon. Friends have shown that we are prepared to spend the time necessary to consider Bills in detail. If Labour Members cannot be persuaded to scrutinise the legislation introduced by the Government—

    765
    without anticipating the debate, I can say that the Bill has not been drafted with any great skill, to put it mildly—it is not too much to ask that they should at least make the case for it.
    Perhaps the serried ranks of the Labour party are outside the Chamber, waiting to come in and make major speeches. Although my hon. Friends and I are outnumbered 3:1 in the House—I am thinking of quantity, rather than quality—there are two Labour Back Benchers present. They seem to be awake, but they are not moving, and I cannot tell whether they intend to speak. It is remarkable not only that Labour Members are not prepared to scrutinise the legislation, but that apparently they are not even prepared to make the case for it.
    Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend is a parliamentary traditionalist, who has 17 years of experience in the House. He referred to the short debate that took place in Committee. Is he shocked by Labour Members' enunciation of an entirely new parliamentary doctrine: a Bill's brisk consideration in Committee somehow justifies a Government decision to truncate, through a guillotine, its consideration on Report? Does he agree that the Committee reports the Bill to the House and that hon. Members who did not serve on the Committee should have a proper opportunity to contribute to its consideration on Report?
    Mr. Nicholls: My hon. Friend is right. He can make that point only because, before he entered the House of Commons, he knew something about the profession that he was entering. I shall embarrass my hon. Friend for a moment by pointing out that he has a degree in politics. However, I am sure that he agrees that, whatever length of time one has wanted to go into Parliament, and whatever trouble one has taken to equip oneself to understand the work, one does not realise until one arrives here exactly what the job entails.
    Labour Members have been here for three years. They are better informed but clearly none the wiser. They should have realised by now that some constitutional proprieties mean that they should return home at the weekend and, instead of saying, "Feel sorry for me; I've had to work long hours for my £48,000 a year", claim, "I have scrutinised the Executive. I have responded to a Whip; we all do that, but I have also considered the legislation to ascertain whether I can make a private point to the Whips, out of the Opposition's hearing." That is not happening.
    What passes for debate and scrutiny has been utterly reduced. The people speak; the Minister comes into the Chamber; she optimistically looks at the clock; she speaks about the force-feeding of the public with hamburgers in the royal parks. She thinks that she can simply walk off with her salary, which exceeds £80,000 a year, believing that she has done the job of a Minister of the Crown. The Minister yawns; it may be the tedium of my speech or the realisation that she will be here in the early hours of the morning. If we cannot make the Government behave as they should and scrutinise Bills; if we cannot win in the Lobby, we can at least expose the Government to the shame that they should feel for treating the House and their constituents with conspicuous contempt.
    9.22 pm
    Mr. Andrew Stunell: In a previous debate, it was a considerable pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). I feel less privileged on this occasion. However, I repeat the point that I made previously: the Government have gone way over the top in their response to apparent provocation by scheduling two guillotines and four Bills for one day. Liberal Democrats believe that that is the wrong response. We shall vote against the guillotine, which we believe is out of place. I deployed arguments for that in the previous debate.
    Mr. Nicholls: How does the hon. Gentleman conclude that criticising Bills constitutes provocation whereas voting against them does not?
    Mr. Stunell: The hon. Gentleman was so committed to resisting the Government that he was not present during the previous debate on a guillotine. Had he been here, he would have heard the case that I presented. I suggest that he has a quick look at Hansard tomorrow morning. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman does not take much pleasure in having it pointed out that he did not listen to the debate.
    Mr. Nicholls: I have read it.
    Hon. Members: We are talking about this evening.
    Mr. Stunell: Indeed.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Can we stop the interventions from sedentary positions and proceed in a more orderly fashion?
    Mr. Stunell: I am happy to take interventions when appropriate. The debate on the guillotine on the first two Bills was enlivened by interventions by Labour and Conservative Members, who believed that I should explain an alternative way forward in more detail. I gave an undertaking to do precisely that during this debate. The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office, nods his head. Therefore, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I hope that you will think it in order for me to do so.
    My hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) and I have submitted a paper to the Modernisation Committee that suggests ways to deal with the immediate problems, starting from the Queen's Speech in November. The principles that we suggest could be applied to the remainder of the Session, if Members on both sides of the House were willing. We propose setting up a legislative business Committee, which would include all parties—Back Benchers and Front Benchers—the usual channels and representatives of minority parties. Immediately after the Queen's Speech, it would consider at what time during the year Bills should be introduced, in which House they would be most appropriately introduced and what would be a sensible time to allow for debate.
    Let us deal head on with the overloading of the House. Whereas one of the Opposition's weapons against the Government is holding them to ransom on the day's timetable, one of the Government's weapons against the

    767
    Opposition is holding us to ransom on the year's timetable so that we do not even know when the summer recess will begin, let alone when it will end.
    Mr. Forth: In that great scheme of his, how would the hon. Gentleman cater for the regrettably ever more common eventuality that, after publishing a Bill in good faith and even undertaking a pre-legislative stage, the Government have to table several hundred amendments during proceedings? How would his neat consensual timetable deal with that?
    Mr. Stunell: The right hon. Gentleman raises an important issue—the quality of the legislation that is introduced. The House has approved the proposal from the Modernisation Committee, which he so disparages, to ensure that far more Bills receive the benefit of pre-legislative scrutiny, which involves not only hon. Members considering the legislation, but its being overhauled and reviewed with the benefit of outside evidence taken by a Select Committee.
    No one can entirely legislate for Government error and fault. No one can entirely imagine everything that may go wrong and all the amendments that might be necessary, but I share a view with the right hon. Gentleman. If the Government have to abandon half a Bill in Committee—as happened with, for example, the Utilities Bill—and have to table a couple of hundred more amendments, the Liberal Democrats would take the view that different procedures should have been applied before it entered the legislative mill. The Chamber is not unlike a computer software slogan, "Rubbish in, rubbish out". If one begins with ill-considered, ill-drafted legislation, it is likely to remain so, however much we mess about with it.
    If a legislative business Committee and adequate pre-legislative scrutiny were in place, many—but not all—of the problems that the House faces would be addressed and we could say, "This heavy legislative programme represents 35 or 40 weeks' work." However, after the Queen's Speech, we do not know in which month a Bill will be introduced or what consultation period will be involved, and there is a scramble to pass legislation before the summer recess. We cannot allow all that to continue.
    The House has approved the possibility, in defined circumstances, of carrying legislation over into the following Session. That avoids another of the problems that we face: the somewhat light programme between the Queen's Speech and Christmas, a heavy Committee programme and the scramble as measures return from the House of Lords. Our system could hardly be better designed to ensure that we foul up, because we are rushing and scampering at the wrong times.
    Surely, the aim of both Government and Opposition is to make certain that the legislation that emerges from this place is appropriate. The Opposition will want to challenge the principles of a Bill, and to ensure that the mechanics are right or, at least, favourable to the interests that they prefer; the Government will want to ensure that they produce working, workable legislation in a timely fashion. We do not obtain the best quality of government or of legislation from our current arrangements, which I would describe as boom-and-bust legislative procedures. It is filibuster and guillotine, boom and bust, and we have problems with both parts of that.
    768
    We oppose this guillotine, although, if these were any parks other than royal parks, any half-decent council would have referred the matter to the environmental health committee and it would have been sorted out in 10 minutes. What has happened in regard to the Royal Parks (Trading) Bill is no advertisement for Parliament. It is particularly strange in the light of yet another proposal submitted to the Modernisation Committee for the improvement of scrutiny of European legislation.
    The hon. Members who have spent so much time talking about royal parks are the very ones who repeatedly complain here about the House's failure to control and monitor properly the flood of European legislation that arrives on our shores; yet it is they who prevented the Modernisation Committee from recommending the establishment of additional Select Committees to scrutinise such legislation. The reason given was that they did not have enough Conservative Members to staff the Committees. They have enough Conservative Members to keep us up talking about royal parks, but not enough to man Select Committees to scrutinise European legislation. One sometimes wonders if they deliberately design to fail: I can think of no better way of doing it.
    Mr. Paterson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Stunell: Certainly. Let us hear the explanation.
    Mr. Paterson: May I point out that my hon. Friends the Members for Stone (Mr. Cash), for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) and for Totnes (Mr. Steen) and I are all members of the European Scrutiny Committee?
    Mr. Stunell: I am delighted to hear it, but apparently those hon. Members could not persuade enough of their colleagues to become members of the proposed additional Committees. As a member of the Modernisation Committee, I thought it made a good deal of sense for those scrutinising that flood of European legislation to be people who had developed a certain expertise on the topics concerned. I thought that it would be sensible to establish Committees that matched the directorates involved, so that such expertise could be built up. Indeed, I considered such a process to be not just sensible but highly necessary. I should have expected Conservative Members to be entirely committed to achieving that; yet, although they have time to spend on bogus amendments about royal parks, they have no time to join the additional European Committees. Although we shall oppose the guillotine on this particular pair of Bills, the actions of Conservative Members test even our patience considerably.
    At the beginning of my speech, I outlined briefly a scheme that would enable the business of the House to be planned so that, more often than not, the problems that we face tonight would be automatically avoided. I also said something else. When Conservative Members wondered how a legislature could possibly get a tighter grip on an over-mighty Executive, I said that one way of doing that would be to have a fairly and proportionately elected Parliament. Their faces fell.
    Executives in European Community countries and wider afield are far more beholden to their legislatures than the Executive of this country. The fundamental reason for that is the fact that in those countries there is

    769
    no one-party domination. Conservative Members may not like that, but the fact that they do not like it does not mean that it is not true.
    Mr. Fabricant: I do not know why the hon. Gentleman thinks that guillotines would be avoided by having proportional representation. They would not. The Italian Parliament has guillotine motions. Why is the Italian Parliament putting to their people in a referendum a proposal to introduce a first-past-the-post system?
    Mr. Stunell: We often hear such arguments. I would be more than happy to engage in a debate on proportional representation, but—
    Madam Speaker: Not today.
    Mr. Stunell: I anticipated that that would be your view, Madam Speaker. I would be delighted to have that debate on another occasion.
    Instead of this guillotine motion, we should be discussing the serious, practical implementation of ideas that I am not putting to hon. Members for the first time, but which have already been before the House and approved but not implemented. That would get us a long way forward. Ideas have been discussed such as improved pre-legislative scrutiny of legislation and Standing Committees that draw much more strongly on the relevant Select Committee membership, so that Standing Committees considering Bills contain people who know what they are talking about.
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office, and I served on the Committee considering the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill, and if I may say so we had an unusually well-informed debate. If there was one thing that members of that Committee knew about it was political parties, and that greatly informed the discussion. I am afraid that that is not always so when hon. Members are allocated to Standing Committees.
    We need to make better use of other agencies. Westminster Hall could be used for debates on Law Commission reports, for Adjournment debates, for holding Ministers to account and for debates on Select Committee reports. We even need a little self-discipline. Although there is no doubt that hon. Members have, and should continue to have, the right to use the procedures of the House to express their anger and outrage at what any Government are doing—long may that continue—we still require a little discretion, common sense and self-discipline so as not every time to use the shotgun or the sledgehammer to crack the nut.
    These two debates have been made necessary by the Government, who have over-reacted to the situation. I suggest to Opposition Members that when we have genuine cause to hold up this or any other Government, we should use the procedure ruthlessly, but if every time we see a space, we fill it, the value of the genuine, deeply held and sometimes bitter opposition to a real issue gets completely hidden in the noise.
    9.38 pm
    Mr. Desmond Swayne: I thank the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting for having the courtesy to come here and propose the motion.
    770
    That is something of a novelty, given our earlier proceedings. However, she did not sustain her argument that the Royal Parks (Trading) Bill in particular—I attended the earlier stages of the debate on that Bill—should be subject to a guillotine. She merely said that it was an important Bill, and that the Government wanted it on the statute book.
    The Minister failed to explain what was so important about the Bill that it required a timetable motion, and what enormous consumption of time had taken place which meant that the motion had to be introduced. She said that it was her preference to spend as little time as possible arguing about the timetable motion so that more time could be spent arguing about the substance of the Bill. That is a fairly honest and honourable position. However, there are times when the consideration of the guillotine motion is more important than the substance of the Bill that is to be guillotined—such is the enormity of a decision to curtail debate and to limit the free speech of Members and their ability to scrutinise a Bill, which is their primary role. Clear justification must be given for that. Frankly, that has been lacking tonight.
    I do not dispute that the Government at times have a right to ask the House to support a timetable motion. It may be that a matter has been considered over a great length of time and that it is felt by the House that it should come to a decision and move on, but the Royal Parks (Trading) Bill has not been discussed for a great length of time. Those who were present in the House last Wednesday will, I think, agree that we were making progress and that the Government would have had their Bill that night. For some extraordinary reason, they decided to pull stumps at 10 o'clock, but they would have had the Bill that night. We were making progress. I have no doubt that we would have continued to make progress.
    I fear that the timetable motion has more to do with the management of those on the Government Benches, and with addressing some of the concerns that they have raised privately with their Whips, than with delivering the Bill. I now fear that the Bill and its Third Reading will be longer in coming than would have been the case had we pursued the discussion last Wednesday night.
    We were told that it was an important Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls), who has temporarily left the Chamber, was concerned that it represented an attack on small entrepreneurs. That was far from true, according to supporters of the Bill. They alleged that it was an assault on organised crime and the Mafia. That is all the more reason, therefore, for the Bill to receive greater and prolonged scrutiny—scrutiny that is now denied by the motion.
    Earlier, a novel argument for the guillotine was introduced by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson). He said that he had no objection whatever to sitting through the night on important measures such as the minimum wage legislation—if it was important Labour Members were prepared to put in the hours. I entirely accept that. However, he wanted a timetable motion because he was not prepared to sit through the night to discuss what he regarded as a consensual or smaller measure—I will not say an unimportant measure; I do not think that he meant that—or a measure of less weight, such as the Royal Parks (Trading) Bill. He believed that such a measure should be guillotined.

    771
    As the hon. Gentleman developed his argument, he resiled from that position. He warmed to his theme and became so passionate at one stage that he struck the microphone, but he moved from his initial position and said that all Bills should be guillotined. Timetables should be applied to all Bills, but the length of time should depend on the importance of the Bill.
    The question arises who is to determine the length of time, as has happened today. The length of time that the Bill will be discussed is a consequence of the timetable motion. The hon. Gentleman did not dwell on the mechanism by which it would be decided that a Bill was important, or the mechanism by which the time that it should have would be decided, but I did not have much confidence in his argument.
    I remember when what I would regard as a very important Bill was guillotined—the Bill that put into English law the provisions of the Amsterdam treaty. It was not guillotined after prolonged scrutiny, and certainly not after prolonged speeches by Opposition Members. Indeed, the Member who spoke longest on that Bill was the Minister himself, who was none other than the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North. It was he, if anyone, who spoke at length on that Bill. My view is that he did not speak overlong on the Bill. He certainly did not filibuster. He dealt with the Bill properly, but it was outrageous to curtail debate when he spoke for longer than anyone else. I therefore cannot have any confidence in his judgment that only important Bills should not be time restricted, whereas unimportant ones—perhaps such as the Royal Parks (Trading) Bill—should be so restricted.
    I rather felt that the hon. Gentleman gave the game away in finishing his remarks, when he said, "By the way, we should do away with all this voting and vote just once a week. It can be announced that we should all be here on that day; then we could plan our timetables accordingly." That is when the cat came out of the bag. Undoubtedly, it would be for the convenience of some hon. Members if we turned up once a week, disposed of all our voting and did away with argument. However, this is not a congress of ambassadors. It is supposed to be a deliberative assembly, to which we come along to listen to the arguments nd then make our decisions.
    The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) made much of the need to make greater use of timetabling. However, I draw his attention to what happened during the passage of the Government of Scotland Act 1998, which was substantially timetabled and demonstrated the weaknesses of using that procedure. I also note that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Gorrie), who is a veteran of that Act's prolonged consideration, is now in the Chamber.
    As my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) said, previously agreed timetables are disrupted not only by the tabling of hundreds of Government amendments. Sometimes, it is only when we start the detailed scrutiny of a Bill that we have any inkling of potential problems with the legislation. Time and again as we considered the 1998 Act, some Labour Members were frustrated—it was not a question of delay or filibustering—by the timetable motion, which prevented them from debating and exploring in Committee previously unforeseen issues.
    In our consideration of the 1998 Act, frequently the programme motion's effect—I do not think that it was deliberately so; in this case, I am certainly not a
    772
    conspiracy theorist—was to silence the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). Although I do not think that that was the intention of the timetable, often enough that was its effect. Those who advocate timetable motions should be clear that they will be silencing not only Opposition Members. Earlier in this Session, I watched with awe and much approval as a disciplined group of Labour Members dealt very effectively with opposed private business. If timetable motions were used more often, Labour Members would soon begin to fall foul of their provisions. I do not advocate going down that road.
    As I said, my fear is that this timetable motion is more to do with the management of Labour Members' disgruntlement than with achieving the legislation. I urge the Parliamentary Secretary, who is essentially Deputy Leader of the House, to find a relatively small group of Labour Members who are prepared to stay on after 10 pm to deal effectively with the arguments that are made by the few Opposition Members who attend those debates. I believe that the Government would find it much easier to get their business by taking that path, rather than by continually pulling stumps, coming back and having to endure—as we shall today—two three-hour debates on timetable motions. I think that the Government would find it more expedient to pass legislation in that way than by using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
    9.49 pm
    Mr. Michael Fabricant: Earlier, I had the privilege of hearing the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) speak about what Parliament is all about. This Parliament is all about the scrutinising and preparation of legislation. It is not a nine-to-five job.
    Let me take the House back with an image from history. Imagine that it is the year 850. Dank mists lie over the water and all that can be heard is the regular swish-swash of oars from a longboat as it enters a misty inlet, which, in future, will be known by the Icelandic words for misty inlet—Reykjavik. Within 50 years, a Parliament was formed, called the Althing—the forerunner of our Parliament.
    In 900 to 950, Norsemen, who later came via Scandinavia to colonise our country, as they had earlier, stood opposite a cliff and would debate not in a Parliament contained by a roof, but in a Parliament contained by the heavens. The acoustics were such that they used to shout at each other, aiming their voices at a cliff. Debates sometimes lasted two, three or four weeks. Chieftains would come from throughout the island of Iceland to speak at the Althing—a collection of individuals who debated the law. There was no written record—
    Mr. Forth: And no guillotine.
    Mr. Fabricant: More to the point, as my right hon. Friend says, there was no guillotine.
    The point is that this Parliament follows in the tradition of the Althing—or it should. However, as the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) has said, the Government have got themselves into a mess. They are over-legislating. As I said earlier, I remember being advised by—I hesitate to use the word—my mentor, the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), who was my pair in the days when we were allowed to have pairs. When the Conservative

    773
    Government were not doing so well, he said that they should stop legislating and stand still. My advice to the Government, who are not doing well, is not to legislate—or at least not to over-legislate. That is what has got them into this mess.
    Why have we got a guillotine motion? Is it because we have discussed the Royal Parks (Trading) Bill or the Television Licences (Disclosure of Information) Bill at length? No. The Royal Parks (Trading) Bill was discussed for just 35 minutes in Standing Committee and the Television Licences (Disclosure of Information) Bill was considered in two sittings for just two hours and three minutes.
    Some might say that they are unimportant Bills, but we know that they are not. The Minister has told us that they are important Bills. So why are they being guillotined? Is it because the Government think that we would not otherwise complete all the stages this evening? I am convinced that if there were no guillotine and the Government were to agree to discuss the Bills through the night if need be, both Bills would receive Third Reading long before the sun rose over the horizon.
    As my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) said, we have a guillotine because Labour Members believe that being a Member of Parliament is a salaried job. But as my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) so eloquently said earlier, this is not a place where one can do a nine-to-five job.
    I have sympathy for the hon. Member for Gloucester (Ms Kingham), who has just had twins. I appreciate that some people have other lives apart from the House of Commons. However, even in a nine-to-five job, one is expected to do the job. One cannot say to an employer, "I am now going to take a four-month leave of absence, but you must keep the job open for me. In the meantime, I want you to adapt your own practices, so that everything slows down because of me." It would be immoral to ask that of an employer. It is even more immoral to ask that of the state which pays our wages.
    Mr. David Winnick: I am interested in the description "nine-to-five job", which none of us wants. Was the hon. Gentleman against the Jopling recommendations? I cannot remember Conservative opposition in the last Parliament to the recommendations, particularly the recommendation that the amount of time spent in the House after 10 o'clock should be limited. If the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues believe that what we are advocating is all wrong, why was there not such opposition to Jopling at the time?
    Mr. Fabricant: The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point. When I came into the House in 1992, I was bewildered by this place. I had come from industry, and I was not a Blair babe. I was a Major man, and I tended to vote with the Government. Rarely did I question the Government. I have to say that I am enjoying myself a darn sight more now that I am able to think for myself in opposition. I had my doubts about Jopling because I thought that it was conceivable that we might be in opposition some day. However, I voted with the
    774
    Government because I was a Major man. I did not feel happy with the provisions of the Maastricht treaty but, like a good victim of the Whips, I voted for that, too.
    Mr. Graham Brady: Does my hon. Friend recall that the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster)—a former Labour Chief Whip—made it clear that he had doubts about Jopling at the time? He has said explicitly that he only dropped those doubts—and that Labour only became prepared to accept Jopling—when the Labour party was convinced that it was going to win the election. There was no high principle involved; it was pure politics.
    Mr. Fabricant: My hon. Friend has made his point clearly. Of course it is a question of politics, organisation and trying to run this House like a legislation factory. However, that is wrong. Legislation is never perfect. There is a strange argument that if legislation is not contentious, we should not spend time over it. However, just because we might agree with the broad thrust of a Bill does not mean that its provisions may not be contentious or imperfect.
    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 Motions on Nuclear Safeguards Bill [Lords] and Sea Fishing Grants (Charges) Bill (Allocation of Time) and Royal Parks (Trading) Bill and Television Licences (Disclosure of Information) Bill (Allocation of Time) may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Clelland.]
    Question agreed to.
    Question again proposed.
    Mr. Fabricant: Labour Members have tried to argue that Conservative Governments had guillotine motions, too, but there are two points to make in reply. First, two wrongs do not make a right. Secondly, if we accept that sometimes guillotine motions are not wrong, because matters can be debated at length on the Floor of the House and in Committee, it is worth examining how often different Governments have used them. My near neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) has made a detailed analysis. He said that during the Thatcher and Major years, the Conservative Government had 60 guillotine motions, but the Labour Government have had 50 in the past three years. It appears that the opinion of many journalists and parliamentarians that this Government are becoming more and more presidential, and less and less interested in what happens in the House, is borne out by their lack of compunction in using guillotine motions.
    The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich, who sadly is no longer in her place, was right to point out that the people who dislike the way in which Parliament works should perhaps not have come here in the first place. Some people believe that when they are in Rome, they should do as the Romans do, but some hon. Members seem to believe that they should make the Romans do as they do. That is the fallacious argument that has been made by many Labour Back Benchers today.
    It is interesting that those who argue for guillotine motions and a factory of legislation were not elected in 1992 or before. They were all new Members of Parliament in 1997, who are as bewildered as I was during the 1992–

    775
    97 Parliament. I can appreciate how they feel, because I too have had to sit on the Back Benches and vote with the Government because of the force of the Whips and my sense of duty to my party.
    The hon. Member for Hazel Grove, who is no longer in his place, spoke at some length in this debate and in the earlier timetable debate about what he would do, if in government, to try to ensure that legislation went through steadily. He said that the Government's legislation is going through boom and bust, but I think that it is going through bust and bust—just as I fear the economy soon will.
    When I asked the hon. Member for Hazel Grove what he would do to prevent guillotines being imposed, he had no answer. However, the answer is obvious: if need be, we must be prepared to debate through the night. If the Government Whips had not pulled stumps at 10 o'clock last Wednesday, we could have finished business by 2 or 3 o'clock the next morning, at the latest.
    Mr. Greenway: Or before.
    Mr. Fabricant: Or before, as my hon. Friend rightly says.
    This Bill must be debated fully. Parliament is a place where people scrutinise legislation and speak—
    Mr. Denis MacShane: On and on.
    Mr. Fabricant: If necessary, they will go on and on and on, as the hon. Gentleman says. However, I give way to the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham), who always makes welcome interventions.
    Mr. Gerald Bermingham: The hon. Gentleman has called me unkind in the past, so I will not be unkind to him tonight. Does not he agree that we might get through our debates faster if our speeches were terse and to the point?
    Mr. Fabricant: The hon. Gentleman is right. I shall be terse and to the point when I contribute to the Third Reading debates on these Bills.
    Mr. David Taylor: For the first time.
    Mr. Fabricant: That is very unfair. When I want, I can speak to the point, but sometimes we must expand on the role of Parliament. Too many people believe that Parliament is not a talking shop, and that we should not scrutinise legislation. They believe that hon. Members should merely vote, unthinkingly, according to the wishes of their Whips.
    Mr. Bercow: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Minister for the Arts wants to truncate scrutiny of the
    776
    Royal Parks (Trading) Bill because he lacks evidence about the pricing policies of burger sellers and the nutritional—or other—properties of their products?
    Madam Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not go down that route.
    Mr. Fabricant: I shall not go down that route, especially as it has been said that bird droppings—
    Madam Speaker: Order. I asked the hon. Gentleman not to go down that route. He should concentrate on the motion before the House.
    Mr. Fabricant: I draw the House's attention to the Parks Regulation Act 1872, which defines which parks are royal. We should have to debate the Bill for much more than a couple of hours if all the hon. Members with royal parks in their constituencies were present tonight. The Act states that the royal parks are Hyde park, St. James's park, Green park—known as "the" Green park in 1872—Kensington gardens, Parliament Square gardens, Regent's park, Kennington park, Primrose hill, Victoria park, Battersea park, Greenwich park, Kew gardens—including the pleasure grounds and the green there—Hampton Court park, gardens and green, Richmond park and green, Bushy park, Holyrood park, and Linlithgow Peel.
    I must confess to my ignorance in not knowing whether Linlithgow Peel is in Scotland, Ireland or Northern Ireland. I suspect that it is not in England—but where are the hon. Members associated with those royal parks? They are not in the Chamber.
    Mr. Swayne: Is it my hon. Friend's estimate that the provisions of that Act are in any way co-measurate with the provisions of the Bill that will be before us after the debate on the motion? How long did it take for that Act to pass through its stages compared with the time that we are being allowed in which to discuss this Bill?
    Mr. Fabricant: I was going to refer to my hon. Friend, but as he has asked me a question to which I have no answer, I must refer to him as the hon. Gentleman. I am afraid that I do not know. The Parks Regulation Bill became an Act on 27 June 1872—I do not have its Committee stage here. Interestingly, it was printed not by Her Majesty's Stationery Office, but by George Edward Eyre and William Spottiswoode. That is a good example of privatisation before HMSO was founded.
    I believe that under no circumstances would the 1872 Act have been guillotined when it was still a Bill. It would have been scrutinised for far longer than the mere 35 minutes that this Bill received in Committee, or the 43 minutes that the Second Reading debate took.
    Mr. Swayne: The argument has been advanced this evening that the very fact that the Committee stage was so short is an argument for curtailing the Bill's remaining stages. Does my hon. Friend agree that the shorter the Committee stage, the greater the care that those of us who wish to scrutinise the remaining stages should take?
    Mr. Fabricant: My hon. Friend—the House will note that I am once again referring to him as an hon. Friend—is right.

    777
    It has been said that a number of amendments to the Bill were tabled on the Floor of the House just to be contentious. That is not the point. I do not know how many people served on the Standing Committee considering the Bill, but I know that there are 639 Members of Parliament—[Interruption.]—or rather, 659. I am showing my age. Actually, I was deducting 20 to take into account those who cannot take part in debate because they are Whips or work with the Speaker.
    The remaining Members of Parliament may think of amendments that they want to table but are unable to do so unless they served on the Standing Committee. To accuse Conservative Members, as Ministers have done, of being provocative or trying to waste time by tabling amendments today is a disgrace and an abuse of the House.
    Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend refers to the scurrilous criticism that amendments and new clauses have been tabled "to be contentious". Will he confirm the important point that, for many Opposition Members, contentiousness does not need to be contrived when it is natural?
    Mr. Fabricant: My hon. Friend, eloquent as ever, states the obvious. When legislation is badly drafted, one needs to be contentious to improve it.
    Mr. Bermingham: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. When a Bill is uncontested on Second Reading and flows through its Committee stage uncontested, is it not an abuse of the process of the House to table spurious amendments and make stupid interventions and silly points in order to prolong proceedings?
    Madam Speaker: Spurious amendments may have been tabled, but all the amendments that were selected by this Speaker are perfectly in order.
    Mr. Fabricant: Thank you, Madam Speaker. In fact, the hon. Gentleman will see that the selection list refers to the Speaker's provisional selection of amendments. That is the point. Perhaps more amendments were tabled, I do not know. However, the fact that they will come before the House today demonstrates that they should have been discussed in Committee. If they were not, it is right and proper that we discuss them on the Floor of the House.
    Mr. David Maclean: Does my hon. Friend consider that Government new clause 2, in respect of the Television Licences (Disclosure of Information) Bill is a spurious amendment, to quote the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham)?
    Mr. Fabricant: That is something that we shall have to debate. Sadly, we shall not be able to do so at length. The abuse of the House is not my debating these issues this evening but the imposition of the guillotine. I suspect that we shall have only an hour to debate six clauses and three groups comprising one new clause and five amendments. That is surely an abuse of the House.
    Mr. Greenway: I am becoming a little concerned that my hon. Friend might think that the Committee did not
    778
    pay sufficient regard to the Bill, given the time that we took to consider it. I give him the assurance that that is not the case. New clause 2 has been tabled by the Government at the request of the Opposition.
    Mr. Fabricant: That was a helpful intervention. It demonstrates that the Government have much to learn from the Opposition. Why is it that the Government think that they can learn from the Opposition only in Committee and not on the Floor of the House? How much more could they learn were we able to debate these issues until 4, 5, 6 or 7 am? We might be able to continue right through until Wednesday. We have learned that the Prime Minister is taking parental leave, and we could continue through Prime Minister's Question Time, as we did once before.
    Mr. Swayne: Am I correct in understanding that my hon. Friend said earlier that these matters should have been considered by the Committee? I think that I am quoting him correctly. Is he criticising the Committee for not having done its duty thoroughly? If that is so, is it his contention that the motion could have been avoided if the Committee of Selection had attended properly to its task?
    Mr. Fabricant: My hon. Friend takes me down an interesting line of reasoning which I think I would be wise not to pursue. However, two heads are better than one. I do not know how many Members served on the Committee, but let us say that there were 11. Given that there are 639 Members able to speak in the House, as opposed to a total membership of 659, surely they constitute a better body of opinion than 11 Members.
    As perfect as the Committee undoubtedly was and as talented as all its members undoubtedly were, it would not be unreasonable to say that they would not be able to think of every improvement that could be made to the Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) has said, it is so easy to be contentious when dealing with Government Bills. Even the Government are contentious when it comes to their Bills. We have only to remember the Utilities Bill, half of which had to be torn up and thrown away. The remaining half was improved by the Government, who had to introduce new clauses that, when put together, were as big the original Bill.
    Mr. Christopher Fraser: I was a member of the Committee that considered the Utilities Bill. We sent it back on the ground that it did not do that for which it was intended because the Government had messed it about. I was a member also of the Committee that considered the Television Licences (Disclosure of Information) Bill, as was my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway). During our consideration of it we put some good points to the Government. Only today I have received comments from the Minister, saying how grateful she is to us for making those points. Our suggestions should have gone into the Bill at that earlier stage. That flies in the face of what the Government are doing.
    Mr. Fabricant: My hon. Friend makes a serious point. When the House is working at its best, we co-operate to try to improve legislation. Both these Bills are non-contentious. Both sides want them to succeed. However, that does not mean that they should simply

    779
    receive a Third Reading. They must be workable, just and correct. It is not unreasonable that amendments should be debated fully and, if necessary, at length. When the Government say, "No, we object to true democracy in the House of Commons", we must question their presidential attitude. The House of Commons is here to scrutinise legislation. It is not here to be timetabled.
    Mr. Paterson: My hon. Friend should not give the House the impression that the Royal Parks (Trading) Bill is not contentious. We are talking about extending the power of the law and the confiscation of private property. Surely our first role is to defend citizens from an over-mighty state.
    Mr. Fabricant: My hon. Friend makes his point in his way, but I am not sure that I agree. No doubt we shall discuss the point when we discuss the Bill, although we shall not do so at length because of the guillotine. I am a free marketeer and libertarian, but the basic principle of the Bill is to provide the same powers to the parks police as the Metropolitan police already have. In that way, traders will not simply be displaced from one area to another.
    Mr. Maclean: With respect to my hon. Friend, has he not missed the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson)? It is not so much the substance of the Bill that we are questioning under the guillotine motion as the fact that its consideration has been largely completed already. Only one amendment remains to be discussed in full, as well as a group of amendments that we were more than half way through. Can my hon. Friend recall a case in which a Government imposed a guillotine when so little remained to be debated on a Bill that had almost completed its Report stage? We could probably have completed the Bill last week if the Government had not slipped in a statement that day.
    Mr. Fabricant: My right hon. Friend is correct, of course. I was present when we debated the Bill until the Government decided to cease consideration at 10 o'clock. Only two groups of amendments remain for discussion, including the one on the power of seizure, retention and disposal of property that we were half way through. After that, there remains a single amendment to do with counterfeit goods. We had no votes on the Bill, so keen were we that it should proceed rapidly. There is general agreement that the House wishes the Bill to be enacted once it has been made good, fair, accurate and just.
    At present, however, the Bill is none of those things. Nor is the Television Licences (Disclosure of Information) Bill. We all want people aged over 75 to have free television. Indeed, I must declare an interest because my mother is 89, alive and well, and living in Lichfield. She is looking forward to not having to pay for her television licence. [Interruption.] For the record, I should say that she does not live with me in Lichfield, as some hon. Members have suggested.
    The Bill needs to be discussed at length. One group of amendments relates to offences and penalties. There is potential for gross intrusion. The previous Government introduced the Data Protection Act 1988, and there is some doubt about whether the Television Licences (Disclosure of Information) Bill breaches the principle of that Act. It will give private organisations access to
    780
    information contained on databases which are maintained by the Department of Social Security and which were previously regarded as secure.
    These are important issues. Yes, we want the outcome to be that people aged over 75 should have free television licences. I am certainly keen that traders should not be displaced either from parks on to public streets or vice versa. However, we must get the measures right. Is it so unreasonable to say in the House of Commons that we want legislation to be right?
    What do the Government say? They say no. They say that we must decide on all those measures quickly, even though there are several contentious issues, and even though, time and again, the Government get their own legislation wrong. We saw that with their introduction of new clauses on these Bills and on previous measures.
    In conclusion—because my voice is giving up on me—the Government have an unhappy record on legislation. They try to railroad it through, like some victorious power; they are heedless of democracy and of what is right. However, while doing that, they cannot achieve quality; time after time, they have to correct their legislation—usually at a late stage.
    It would be in the Government's interest not to impose a guillotine on these measures, because only with time do they find out that their legislation is fallacious. Was it not a year after the Opposition made criticisms of the Utilities Bill that those criticisms finally seeped through to the Department of Trade and Industry and into the mind of the Secretary of State? It took a whole year.
    I am not suggesting that we spend a year discussing either of the Bills, but I am arguing that we should debate them properly. There was a teacher who always used to interrupt me when I was giving a little discourse to my class—like certain Labour Members who intervene on me to try to shut me up, but that tends to make me speak for even longer, because interventions make people talk longer. I suspect that the Government would find that, if the legislation were not guillotined and they had not drawn stumps, we should have held the Third Reading debate more than a week ago.
    The measure is imperfect. An imperfect Government are trying to force through far too much legislation too quickly—it is deficient and has to be corrected. The use of the guillotine 50 times in three years, compared with 60 times in 11 years when we were in government, demonstrates clearly that the Government are not concerned with democracy. They are not interested in Parliament. They make announcements to the press before they make them to the House. They try to sideline Westminster.
    Power is centred more and more on Whitehall, but the electorate are listening. They are watching; they have seen through the Government. Every time the Government make an announcement, the electorate say, "What, again? More money? We don't believe it because we don't see it." Perhaps a year from now, just before the election, money will be announced and the Government will be telling the truth, but no one will believe them—
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying a long way now. A moment ago, I thought he was in his peroration.
    Mr. Fabricant: To conclude, the bypassing of Parliament achieves nothing. In the short term, it results

    781
    in imprecise legislation. In the long term, the public see through it. In two or three years' time—under a Conservative Government—the legislation will come back and we shall have to correct it, because, when the Labour Government railroad legislation through, they consistently get it wrong.
    10.29 pm
    Mr. Robert Maclennan: The length of a speech and its quality are not entirely related. The hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) should take a leaf out of the book of Abraham Lincoln and his Gettysburg address, which took less than five minutes. It echoed down the ages because of its content.
    I do not complain that the debate on the motion promises to be rather longer than the debates on the substance of the Bills. The management of legislation is in many ways more important than its substance. I only regret that, in speaking against the guillotine, Conservative Members' views have been sustained by such weak arguments. It is peculiar to latch on to these two instant Bills to make such points.
    The Royal Parks (Trading) Bill owes its genesis to the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke). He was a member of the Standing Committee and expressed himself to be more than content with the way in which the Bill had been introduced. In so far as he had any criticisms to make—and he made them—he expressed considerable irritation that the Bill had not been introduced earlier and had not been dealt with more expeditiously. His absence speaks eloquently of his irritation at the performance and gyrations of some Conservative Members who have done so much to prevent the Bill from becoming law.
    Mr. Maclean: The right hon. Gentleman is correct in so far as my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) was concerned about the delays in getting the Bill to the House. The Government caused those delays last year because of the time it took them to get the private Member's Bill that my right hon. Friend introduced through the legislative process. Unfortunately, he had to introduce his Bill late in the Session and it did not receive a Second Reading. His concerns were caused by delays in the Government machine. The Government approved a Bill which they eventually decided was uncontentious.
    Mr. Maclennan: I wish I could say that it is a novel idea to suggest that delays caused by the Government are wrong, while those caused by the Opposition are right. The right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster complained about delay, and the Bill has been considerably delayed more than necessary by the antics of Conservative Members.
    Mr. Bercow: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with the Government that brief consideration of a Bill in Standing Committee justifies the imposition of a guillotine on Report, or does he agree with the Opposition that such consideration justifies no such thing?
    Mr. Maclennan: In this case, the short time it took to consider the Bill in Committee and the absence of
    782
    significant representations to those on the Committee—I was one of them—suggested that the people most directly affected by its provisions were not greatly perturbed. The Bill was widely perceived to meet a need. It might even have been desirable to have it on the statute book before the summer recess when people visit the royal parks—
    Mr. Paterson: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Maclennan: Let me finish my sentence. I do not want to make a speech that is much longer than Lincoln's at Gettysburg. However, as I have been interrupted, I will give way.
    Mr. Paterson: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. Had he been here at 10 o'clock last Wednesday night, he would have seen that we were well on the way to completing the Bill's report stage. Very few Members wished to speak and if the 10 o'clock motion had been moved and a Government Whip had not arbitrarily interrupted the debate, the Bill would probably have sailed on and been given a fair wind. It was unnecessary to stop proceedings at 10 o'clock.
    Mr. Maclennan: The 10 o'clock rule exists to enable the Government to conclude proceedings if that seems appropriate to them and to the House. I belong to the school of thought that, on the whole, it makes more sense for proceedings to conclude at 10 o'clock than to go on beyond that.
    I remember my late friend, John Mackintosh, the former Labour Member of Parliament for Berwick and East Lothian, serving notice on the then Labour Government, whom he mostly supported, that if they were so unwise as to bring on legislation after 10 o'clock, they could not count on his support. That view weighed heavily with the Government as they had a very small majority, and they almost invariably paid attention to what he said. In fact, he almost established a convention of the House.
    I am concerned that, because the present Government do not have a small majority—indeed, they have an almost unprecedentedly large majority—they will plough on regardless because no one is prepared to put their foot down and say, at 10 o'clock, "Enough is enough." I think that enough is enough. I am fortified in that view by what I read in today's Evening Standard, where the former Conservative Member of Parliament for Buckingham, Mr. George Walden, talks of how the public have increasingly lost sympathy with the House and ceased to see it as the cockpit of major national debate, not least because of its inability properly to manage its business and because it goes on debating matters into the night.
    I do not want to take too much issue with the hon. Member for Lichfield, who was indulging his wit.
    Mr. David Taylor: What?
    Mr. Maclennan: After-dinner speeches are supposed to be light and entertaining, and the hon. Member for Lichfield fell firmly into that category.
    Mr. Fraser: Can the right hon. Gentleman, who is giving us a Cook's tour of parliamentary procedure,

    783
    explain why, in recent Committee proceedings on the Utilities Bill and the Television Licences (Disclosure of Information) Bill, which I attended, his colleagues tabled amendments but did not bother to turn up to move them? How does that help the parliamentary process that he is describing?
    Mr. Maclennan: Curiously enough, I am addressing the two Bills that are before the House and whether or not a guillotine motion should be employed in this instance. I am not aware of what the hon. Gentleman has described and I cannot see that it is relevant to the discussion. The relevant question is whether this is the best way to manage the business of the House.
    It is time that the Opposition got together with the Government and took up the idea of a legislative procedure Committee in which we seek agreement about how to deal with these matters. It is plain nonsense that we should be subject to the silly behaviour that characterised the consideration of the Royal Parks (Trading) Bill at an earlier stage on the Floor of the House, provoking an almost equally unacceptable attempt by the Government to curtail debate. That is not a rational way to deal with these matters, and it is time for the House to grow up and recognise that we are simply switching off the public with these performances. We may greatly entertain ourselves—hon. Members on both sides of the House are here because they have been told that they are required to be here, so they make the proceedings light and amusing for themselves—but that attitude to what is essentially an issue of public policy is too self-interested and self-centred.
    Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. Buckinghamites naturally tend to protect each other. The right hon. Gentleman referred to my predecessor, who in many ways is an admirable and distinguished fellow. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that he is not claiming that my predecessor, Mr. George Walden, was supporting the application of the guillotine on these two Bills? Parliament is held in low esteem, perhaps even in public opprobrium, not because of its consideration of these Bills, but because Ministers and Government Back Benchers rarely attend, could not care less what people think, and despise the traditions of this distinguished House.
    Mr. Maclennan: The former hon. Member for Buckingham made a better plea than I could in this matter, and he gave a great deal of thought to it. I recommend the article to his successor and suggest that he read it. The former hon. Member did not address the subject of guillotines. What he addressed, squarely, was the issue of the House failing to manage its business in a way that makes sense to the public. In particular, he referred to holding debates after 10 pm. It is not a rational response on the part of his successor to go down the route that he is following tonight.
    Mr. David Taylor: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. Is it not ambitious to expect the official Opposition to sign up to the principles of rational debate? Is that not as likely as a group of sumo wrestlers signing up to Weight Watchers?
    Mr. Maclennan: I live in hope. I have listened to Conservative Members in the House and outside advancing
    784
    arguments—more often, perhaps, when in opposition than when in government—for the sensible management of debate.
    I served on the Hansard Society committee on the reform of the legislative process, which was chaired by Lord Rippon, a former Member of Parliament for Hexham. That committee put forward ideas that I would commend to the present Administration. They were supported by people of all parties and none as being the way forward.
    I grant, and it has always been granted, that Oppositions—I have served more in opposition than in government—have some fear of the loss of time being the loss of an opportunity to hold the Government to account. None the less, the factious use of time simply discredits the process of opposition and makes it seem irrelevant.
    When a couple of Bills on which both sides are united on the substance lead to such a partisan exchange, it exacerbates the public disaffection—the switch-off factor. It would be sensible for us all to recognise that before it is too late—before the only serious debates in this country are those that take place not in the Chamber, but with people such as Andrew Marr, Robin Oakley or John Sergeant mediating them. I should prefer to have those debates in the House, under your chairmanship, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and under the chairmanship of the Speaker. This is where we want to hear it happen, but we must have a sense of proportion in deciding which are the big issues. Maastricht has been cited this evening, as has the Scotland Bill. Those were major issues that required and received lengthy debate, but if we inflate matters such as the Royal Parks (Trading) Bill and the Television Licences (Disclosure of Information) Bill in the way that occurred tonight and last week, I am afraid that we will go on losing the confidence and respect of the public whom we are trying to serve.
    10.44 pm
    Mr. Christopher Chope: I understand the point made by the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) in relation to today's news. Ministers from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport are on the Front Bench. The big news that most people are talking about today is the additional £29 million to be given to the dome. Many of my constituents object strongly to that, yet the House has had no opportunity to discuss it. I believe that the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross made a similar point, with which I agree.
    I could not follow the logic of the right hon. Gentleman's argument about the Television Licences (Disclosure of Information) Bill because that measure did not receive its Second Reading until after 10 pm. I am surprised that he did not object to that. It would not have happened under a Conservative Government. It was a convention under the previous Government that a Second Reading debate would not start after 10 pm. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman tried to make that point.
    The Minister's introduction to the debate included specious arguments. She argued that there was an urgent demand for the television licences measure to get on to the statute book. It may now be urgent, but that is because the Government delayed earlier. The hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) has left, but those of us who practised as barristers recall a time when many

    785
    papers, which had been sitting in chambers for longer than they should, changed from routine to urgent. That meant that they had been overlooked, not that an emergency had occurred. If the Minister meant that the Bill was an emergency measure, I remind hon. Members that it has not been pushed through the House on that basis.
    Having had a rather leisurely Second Reading debate after 10 pm, the Bill went into Committee. The first day the Committee sat, it spent only half an hour considering the matter before it adjourned and returned after Easter. That is hardly indicative of extreme urgency.
    Mr. Fraser: Does my hon. Friend agree that a perfectly adequate ten-minute Bill, which was supported by Conservative Members, was introduced last year to tackle the same issue? Had it been accepted, the Government would not have had to introduce a Bill in such a politically expedient way.
    Mr. Chope: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. My hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) introduced a ten-minute Bill which was supported by all parties, but not the Government Front Bench. If the Government were not so proud or foolish, they could have accepted the Bill, which would be on the statute book by now—and 11,000 of my constituents, who will benefit from free licences for those aged over 75, would already be benefiting.
    Mr. Bercow: We have reached a significant point in our deliberations. My hon. Friend says that the House's time, which Labour Members claim so jealously to guard, has been frivolously wasted for no other or better reason than the hubris of Ministers.
    Mr. Chope: My hon. Friend is right, as he invariably is. We are considering a serious issue. The more the Government believe that they can push through measures by use of the guillotine, the less attention they will give to whether the Bills should have been introduced in the first place and whether they should have been piecemeal measures.
    We would not be discussing the Royal Parks (Trading) Bill if someone had thought more seriously about whether we required a Bill that embraced the needs of Westminster, the royal parks and perhaps other local authority areas. One Bill could have covered all those subjects. Instead, the City of Westminster Bill was introduced in the previous Session and the Royal Parks (Trading) Bill has been introduced in this Session.
    We learn from a previous debate that there is every prospect of other local authorities calling for even more legislation because the Royal Parks (Trading) Bill and the City of Westminster Act 1999 will result in displacement of anti-social behaviour to other local authorities. That means that more prime time in the House will be taken up. That could have been avoided if the Government had considered matters in advance. The Minister's argument about the need for urgency does not wash.
    Last November, the Chancellor announced that all over-75s would be given a free television licence this autumn, but pensioners are to receive their licence rather later than many of them expected. That is so often the
    786
    case with the Government. Be that as it may, free licences will be introduced on 1 November, but, by all accounts, arguments about who would administer the scheme were still taking place in Whitehall in the early months of this year. There would have been no need for the Bill had the Government adopted the common-sense proposition that the over-75s—effectively, the generation of law-abiding, God-fearing citizens that served this country so well in the war—could be trusted to own a television without a licence. There would have been no need for this bureaucracy.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. The hon. Gentleman must discuss the allocation of time motion, not the Bill's merits.
    Mr. Chope: I was not seeking to discuss the Bill's merits and I accept your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
    The Government could have achieved their objective without legislating. Had they given that more thought, less of our time would have been wasted in considering the Bill.
    I look forward to the Minister's explanation of why the first sitting of the Committee considering this urgent legislation lasted only half an hour; the second lasted only an hour and a half. Had it met for a full sitting, consideration could have been completed and the Bill could have returned to the House much sooner.
    Mr. Swayne: The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) suggested that greater use be made of pre-legislative scrutiny, which would rely greatly on the expertise of Select Committees. Is it my hon. Friend's estimate that scrutiny of the Bill in Committee would have been much more exhaustive had such a procedure been applied? Therefore, the timetable motion would not have been required.
    Mr. Chope: I take my hon. Friend's point; the timetable motion is not required. It represents a macho exercise by the Government—an attempt to satisfy some of their Back Benchers by making a point against my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). That is unnecessary. We know perfectly well that the Royal Parks (Trading) Bill was being discussed last Wednesday—I was speaking to amendment No. 6—and I expected the 10 o'clock motion to be moved by the Government, which would have allowed me to finish my speech and the House to complete its consideration of that important measure. After hearing the Government's reply, we could have dealt with the remaining amendment and proceeded to Third Reading.
    Mr. Maclean: Will my hon. Friend comment on the rumour, which was awash in the House that night, that, incompetently, the Government had put Labour Members on a one-line Whip, they had all gone home and were not in the House to vote? The Government did not want the debate to go beyond 10 o'clock because they knew that there may have been a vote on amendment No. 6.
    Mr. Chope: I remember discussing that point with my right hon. Friend on that occasion. If one thinks of these proceedings as a game, Conservative Members missed a trick: we were concentrating too hard on the merits of the Bill and not thinking enough about strategy and tactics.
    Mr. Bercow: If the Television Licences (Disclosure of Information) Bill was so uncontentious that it required

    787
    minimal consideration in Committee, why have the Government only now tabled new clause 2? Did that not occur to them before? If not, why not?
    Mr. Chope: I do not know whether my hon. Friend has had a chance to read the Committee proceedings, but I have. It is clear from those proceedings that, as a result of comments by my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) and also by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mr. Fraser), the Minister said that she would think about that point. To give her credit, she did think about it and recognised that it was a good point, and that is now reflected in new clause 2.
    It has been suggested that the whole purpose of the Report stage of Bills is merely to consider a good many more detailed amendments. We know perfectly well that one of the few opportunities that often arise in the House for the discussion of major issues results from the introduction of new clauses on Report. That is why, on Report, new clauses take priority over amendments. On many a criminal justice Bill, issues relating to, for instance, capital punishment have been presented on Report and we have engaged in major debates here, some of which have lasted all day. The idea that we should curtail Report stages because they are an unimportant part of the legislative process is a dangerous one: it could result in the conferring of substantially more power to the Executive and to the power of the legislature—the true representatives of the people—being much diminished.
    Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend speaks of the importance of considering new clauses. Would he care to reflect on the fact that four of the new clauses selected by the Speaker—from which we assume that they are not bogus or spurious, but are genuine new clauses worthy of debate here—were tabled by Opposition Members, including me, and one was tabled by the Government? In those circumstances, is it not outrageous to curtail debate on these important new clauses?
    Mr. Chope: I entirely agree. It is outrageous to curtail debate in this way, and it need never have happened. At the end of tonight's proceedings, we shall probably find that more time has been spent overall on discussing allocation of time motions than would have been spent on discussing the substantive issues contained in the Bills had the Government not tabled those motions. I find it depressing that the Government felt it necessary to table them to try to satisfy their Back Benchers.
    Mr. Maclean: It is a question of pique.
    Mr. Chope: It shows that the Government no longer command the respect of their Back Benchers and are having to throw them titbits every now and again to try to keep them satisfied. That is an astonishing way to behave, given that the Government have such a large majority.
    Mr. Fabricant: My hon. Friend will have read in The Times—this is pertinent to the motion—that several Labour Members will be standing down after serving just one term. Does my hon. Friend think that the Government's motive in imposing guillotine motions such
    788
    as this—although they destroy the democracy in which we currently serve—is to keep Blair babes, and others who are going to have twins, in the House of Commons?
    Mr. Chope: My hon. Friend made some excellent comments earlier about "Major's men", a gang of which he was a proud member.
    Mr. Bercow: He voted for Redwood.
    Mr. Chope: My hon. Friend does not want that to be put on the record—[Interruption.] As for Blair's babes, I am the last person who can comment usefully. When I was at school, I was asked to write an essay on the proposition "A Woman's Place is in the Home". I think I was the only person in my year who divided the proposition into different stages in a woman's life. Would it, for example, be appropriate for her to be at home looking after young children and to go out to work later? But perhaps I am straying a bit from the subject of tonight's debate.
    The Government had an opportunity to introduce the television licences legislation earlier, if indeed they needed to introduce it at all, but they are now trying to force the Bill through urgently. The Minister said on Second Reading that issues related to the total cost of administering the scheme for free licences would be brought out during the debate in Committee. It is my understanding that those issues have not yet been brought out, and we could have legitimately raised that on Third Reading. I hope that we shall still be able to discuss that during the Third Reading debate, which will be much curtailed as a result of the Government's allocation of time motion.
    My constituency contains some 11,000 pensioners over 75, which is more than in any other parliamentary constituency in the country. They are eager to find out how the new scheme for television licences will be administered. Hon. Members will be deprived of the opportunity to raise those issues on Third Reading.
    Under the terms of the allocation of time motion, I expect to be able to speak further on amendment No. 6 to the Royal Parks (Trading) Bill, which I was speaking to when the House adjourned at 10 o'clock last Wednesday. The major point that has emerged from today's proceedings on these allocation of time motions is that the Government are guilty of proliferating piecemeal legislation. That is the root cause of the problem over the Government's timetable and the allocation of time motions for debating these Bills.
    The provisions of the Royal Parks (Trading) Bill could have been included in a consolidated measure in common with the City of Westminster Act 1999. If the Government were less regulatory minded, we could have achieved the objective of allowing people aged over 75 to watch television without paying a licence fee, without any need for the Television Licences (Disclosure of Information) Bill or the bureaucracy it creates, which will cost some £24 million. Interestingly, that sum is not dissimilar to the extra £29 million that the Government have awarded to the dome—a cause that has little sympathy among the general public.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Those matters are nothing to do with the timetable motion.
    Mr. Chope: I accept your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
    11.3 pm
    Mr. Owen Paterson: It is a great pleasure to be called in the debate, and I shall be as brief as I can, as I know that other hon. Members want to speak and time is short.
    This is a completely unnecessary guillotine motion. I was here at 10 o'clock on Wednesday last week. Few Labour Members were present. Progress was being made. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) was speaking to amendment No. 6, and the debate was going smoothly. Serious points had been made by my right hon. Friends the Members for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean). To my astonishment, the Labour Whip closed proceedings down and moved the motion that the House be adjourned. That was completely unnecessary. It was a symptom of the fact that the Government and Government Whips in particular have lost control of their Back Benchers. It is as simple as that.
    Mr. Maclean: The Back Benchers had gone home.
    Mr. Paterson: They had. They wanted to go to bed. I wonder what their constituents think about that. Why were those Members sent here? The debate has been most interesting because it has thrown up major differences on either side of the House. I regard it as a huge honour to be elected to the House. I am allowed to stand here and to say what I like. I am one of 659 people with an enormous privilege: to come here and to speak. That is what Parliament is all about.
    I might be a bit of a traditionalist. The first Parliaments were held in Acton Burnell and Shrewsbury in Shropshire. I regard it as a retrograde step that, soon after, Parliament moved to Westminster and has been here ever since. There is always hope that it might move back to Shrewsbury. It is unlikely, but I am prepared to travel from Shropshire to speak, to represent the people of North Shropshire, to say what I think about matters and to give my judgment. I may be wrong. I may be laughed at. I may be shouted down, but that is my role as a Member of Parliament.
    I find it extraordinary because people have gone to such trouble to get in here. We all know it because we have all been through the process. We all had to go through the party system, to fight our duff seat, to be councillors and to work our way through our party machines to get in here. It is a long hard slog to become a Member of Parliament.
    Mr. Quentin Davies: Is not the Government's behaviour a much more worrying and sinister phenomenon than my hon. Friend suggests? Is it not a fact that they have become so arrogant with their enormous majority that they do not feel that they need to listen to parliamentary opinion any more? If the going gets a bit rough, they know that they can always pull stumps and guillotine the measure through with their vast docile majority.
    Mr. Paterson: My hon. Friend makes a pertinent point, which I shall come to. The Government do take advantage of their huge majority. My hon. Friend is right. What I
    790
    find extraordinary is that many Labour Members are here on a temporary stay. They will not be here for more than one Parliament.
    Mr. David Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman explain how it is possible to reconcile the view that we have just heard—that the Government have a large docile majority—with his own view that the reason for the timetabling of the legislation is because the Government have lost control of that large docile majority?
    Mr. Paterson: The Government are lazy. It is as simple as that. They are lazy in imposing discipline on their troops. We see that. There are ridiculous objections to the time here. In an earlier debate, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst pointed out that, on Friday morning, he was here from 9 o'clock until 2.30. I was here in the later stages of that debate. Surely those qualify as civilised hours for a debate, according to all the criteria of the new Labour luvvies. Surely they can all get out of bed in time to be here by 9.30.
    Mr. Gordon Marsden: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Paterson: I am delighted to give way to the hon. Member for Blackpool, North.
    Mr. Marsden: South, actually.
    I have been listening with interest to the hon. Gentleman's argument. Does he not agree that it is perhaps a sign occasionally of greater maturity among Labour Members that many of them prefer—and, indeed, need—to spend Fridays in their constituencies listening to and representing their constituents, rather than sitting in this place and listening to some of the waffle that we have heard this evening?
    Mr. Paterson: That is an important contribution because it shows the difference between the attitudes on both sides of the House. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that he should be visiting his constituency. He should be concerned with his constituents. That is right, but I feel that too many Labour Members are obsessed with face-to-face meetings with their constituents and not with their equal responsibilities here: passing laws that make very important decisions affecting the civil liberties of the citizens of this country.
    Mr. Maclean: Is it not the case that, now, almost every second Friday is a non-sitting Friday to enable Members to visit their constituencies and to meet constituents, but that, when we do have sitting Fridays, there is important business before the House? We had two Bills on Friday, which we passed. One was promoted by a Conservative Member and the other by a Labour Member. There was total support from both Front-Bench teams and from hon. Members on both sides of the House. One Bill dealt with the freedom of patients to have doctors' practice investigated. The other tightened up on animal cruelty. It was not waffle or rubbish that Members dealt with on that important Friday, when the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden) could not be bothered to be here.
    Mr. Paterson: My right hon. Friend makes his point with his usual eloquence. On Friday, he was in the Chamber, speaking and proposing sensible amendments that have improved those two Bills.

    791
    It is most important that Labour Members should consider their role. They are more than county councillors or district councillors. Although councillors have a very worthwhile occupation, there is an awful lot more to being an hon. Member than acting as a councillor, by only holding surgeries and paying attention to constituents' nitty-gritty details. Members of Parliament have another role and that role is performed here in the Chamber—by speaking up for constituents.
    The hon. Member for Blackpool, South has rights that the 70,000-odd people whom he represents do not have.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has to speak to the timetable motion, not remind us of the duties of Members of Parliament. Most of us know those duties.
    Mr. Forth: Those Labour Members do not.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: I do not need to be reminded.
    Mr. Paterson: I shall follow your stricture, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
    Mr. Bercow: Does not this allocation of time motion admirably explain the mindset of Government Back Benchers—this is utterly germane to the allocation of time motion—in that they are wholly docile in agreeing not to speak about any of the matters for which time is being allocated, but they are utterly outspoken about their selfish right to go home when it suits them?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The allocation of time motion is not about when hon. Members go home—it has nothing to do with that—but about an allocation of time for the legislation that we are about to consider. Hon. Gentlemen must speak to that.
    Mr. Paterson: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is important to discuss the allocation of time motion in the light of how Labour Members seem to respect parliamentary time. I think that that is the point that Opposition Members are trying to get at.
    Mr. Bercow: I certainly comply, immediately and without hesitation, with your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, does my hon. Friend not agree that, if sufficient hon. Members were motivated to comment on powers of seizure, on counterfeit, on offences and penalties on the disclosure of information and related matters, substantially more time than the Government are allocating would be required?
    Mr. Paterson: Certainly; and perhaps they would be if it were their own property.
    A telling phrase was used in a debate, last year, when one of the Government Back Benchers described himself as a "middle manager", which perhaps explains the difference between Opposition Members and Government Members. We think that our role is to oppose the motion, because we believe that we should be spending our time going through the Bill line by line. In the 1240s, knights came down from Shropshire to Parliament to examine Bills line by line, in the light of their own experience. They did not see themselves as middle managers. [Interruption.]
    792
    The hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Bradley) laughs. One of his predecessors—one of those very first knights from Shropshire—was described by Peter de Montford as being "over independent". The hon. Gentleman should remember that. He has been sent to this place to examine Bills line by line.
    We are considering important legislation, affecting confiscation of property—
    Mr. Swayne: The Mafia.
    Mr. Paterson: I have not come to the Mafia yet.
    I am concerned about extending the powers of law and order to the confiscation of private property. The Television Licences (Disclosure of Information) Bill contains dramatic powers on the disclosure of confidential information to the BBC, of all organisations.
    Mr. Fabricant: At least the BBC is a public corporation that is governed by royal charter. Is it not also true that the information to which my hon. Friend refers would be disclosed to private corporations contracted under the Bill's terms? Is that not worrying?
    Mr. Paterson: That is worrying, but I will not be tempted by my hon. Friend to go into too much of the detail of the Bills, because we are discussing the timetable motion. The Bills deal with serious matters relating to law and order and the disclosure of information.
    The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), who is sadly not in his place, made a brief speech earlier, arguing that subjects that are debated in the House should be divided between those that are very important and those that are not. That is a dangerous suggestion. We are here to scrutinise the Executive and hold it to account. The Walsall doctrine, as we might call it, would give power to the Executive to decide what is important.
    We have pushed as hard as we can this evening at the Liberal Democrats. The first contribution of the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) was about as satisfactory as chewing cardboard and I am afraid that his second contribution did not enlighten us much more.
    Mr. Swayne: The right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan), who is sadly no longer in his place, likened his speech to the Gettysburg address. He said that he had received no representations during the Committee stage from those who would be affected by the Royal Parks (Trading) Bill, but the hamburger salesmen who would be affected were inarticulate and unlikely to be in a position to make such representations.
    Mr. Paterson: My hon. Friend makes a telling point. My right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) has also tabled important amendments about language. One problem is that the entrepreneurs who sell their interesting sausages, hot dogs and other goods, including hot nuts, we have been told, speak a lot of foreign languages.
    Mr. Stunell: It might be more helpful to remember, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) pointed out, that the right hon. Member for Cities of London and

    793
    Westminster (Mr. Brooke)—a Conservative Member who represents those who work in the parks—was keen for the Bill to proceed in its current form and took a dim view of the delays that had taken place. That is a different perspective from that offered by the hon. Member for New Forest, East or West, as the case may be.
    Mr. Paterson: There was plenty of time after 10 o'clock last Wednesday evening to sort out the Royal Parks (Trading) Bill. It could have been long behind us and we could be discussing something more interesting and more important. It is unnecessary to be discussing it now.
    The hon. Member for Hazel Grove had a second shot in this debate. He said that there should be an all-party legislative Committee consisting of Front-Bench and Back-Bench Members from both sides of the House. I thought that that was a pretty accurate description of the House of Commons. It was the most bizarre constitutional suggestion from the Liberal Democrats. We had waited all evening for it, and all that we heard was that the House of Commons should decide these matters.
    Mr. Fabricant: The irony is that if there were such a Committee, as proposed by the woolly hatted woolly thinkers along the gangway, its consideration would be guillotined, so there would be no advantage.
    Mr. Paterson: We have got nothing out of the Liberal Democrats about how they would sort out the problem.
    We are faced with a capacity problem. The Government are trying to crash through 28 Bills in one Session and are tacking on a few private Members' Bills as well. Not long ago, a senior member of the Tory party who had been involved in running legislative programmes during the 1980s told me that it was not possible to get more than 18 Bills through. The Government are trying to crash through 28 when 18 will go into the pot. We are not increasing the time available—if anything we are reducing it, because the luvvies all want to get home to bed by 10 o'clock.
    The problem is compounded by the Government's rotten drafting. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mr. Fraser), who has just left the Chamber, referred to amendments tabled to the Utilities Bill that were not spoken to. We all know that that Bill had to be ripped up and started again from scratch. Those are problems caused by the Government. We are already overgoverned. We already have too much legislation, too many bureaucrats and too much taxation and the Government are only increasing that.
    Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend commented on the rotten drafting. One can always criticise aspects of drafting, and I have found some measures that the Government have accepted could have been drafted more appropriately. However, the real criticism should not be of the parliamentary draftsmen—who are desperately overstretched by the Government—but of the instructions issued by Ministers on the Utilities Bill, which tried to do far too much and was nonsense, the Transport Bill and the Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Act 1997.
    Mr. Paterson: That is a fair comment. I have sat on the Standing Committee considering the Transport Bill, and elements of that Bill were badly drafted. Mistakes were made.
    794
    The hon. Member for Hazel Grove mentioned Europe. I am a member of the European Scrutiny Committee, and I wholly admire the Clerks who have to give us a precis of detailed legislation. Even then, we are making mistakes because we do not scrutinise European legislation as we do in the Chamber; or should do, if the Government allowed us the time—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We have a timetable motion before us, and I remind the hon. Gentleman again that that is what he must speak to—not other matters in the House. That is not the point before us.
    Mr. Paterson: I follow your point, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I am just making the comparison between the need—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have given the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) some leeway, but making the point and demonstrating what can happen in other Committees is one thing. Going on and on at great length is something that I cannot permit. We have a narrow timetable motion. If the hon. Gentleman cannot speak to it, he has an option; he can sit down and let someone else be called.
    Mr. Paterson: I will follow your strictures, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
    The first guillotine motion was on 11 June 1887, when the House had got bogged down in debates on Ireland for more than three weeks. It is interesting that Gladstone described that as
    a further abridgement of parliamentary liberty.
    Mr. John Hayes: Long after that guillotine motion was moved, matters concerning the royal parks were debated in this House on 29 November 1926. The then Government saw fit to allow a free and wide-ranging debate on issues similar to those that would be debated tonight, if we had time, in respect of Royal Parks (Trading) Bill. Were not Governments in those days more generous and sensible on matters concerning the royal parks, which are of great concern to us all?
    Mr. Paterson: My hon. Friend makes a good point. We should be scrutinising the Bill line by line.
    Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend may like to contrast the guillotine introduced in the 19th century to deal with a long-running debate on the Irish question with the debate on the Television Licences (Disclosure of Information) Bill, which has not had a Report stage. It had a brief Second Reading, two brief sittings in Committee and no time at all on the Floor of the House. Surely there is a world of difference between the guillotine of the Irish business in the late 1800s and the guillotine of the Bill tonight.
    Mr. Paterson: My right hon. Friend makes exactly the right point. The first guillotine was brought in to try to resolve the titanic problems of Ireland, which dominated parliamentary debate throughout the 19th century and have not been resolved now. I shall not refer to Parnell, Gladstone and those involved, as the House will be

    795
    familiar with them. These were huge issues, debated at enormous length—and here are we, guillotining a relatively little Bill on television licences. The contrast could not be more dramatic. Gladstone, Lloyd George and Churchill did not make their names by going to bed early at 10 o'clock, but by speaking in this House with great erudition, in great detail and at great length. The Minister is laughing, but this debate is totally unnecessary.
    Mr. Fabricant: My hon. Friend mentioned the first time that guillotine motions were used following the titanic debates on the Northern Ireland question. How does he contrast those debates, which went on for months, with the debate on the Royal Parks (Trading) Bill, which lasted 43 minutes on the Floor of the House on Second Reading and just 35 minutes in Committee? At that stage, the Government say, "Enough is enough, the Blair babes want to go home so we will table a guillotine motion."
    Mr. Paterson: There is a real danger that bad law will be passed, as we have seen with some of the other measures that the Government have guillotined. Severe criticisms were made of the Welsh and Scottish referendums, and that could have been because they were guillotined and debate was truncated. Very real criticisms have been made of the treaty of Amsterdam, which was enacted as the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1998, and that was guillotined. I live on the border with Wales and real criticisms have been made there of the Welsh Assembly. I suspect that is because the relevant legislation was crashed through the House without proper parliamentary scrutiny. That is the point—line by line scrutiny is important.
    It is worth reminding the House of the wise words of John Biffen, who was a highly esteemed previous Leader of the House and greatly respected on both sides. He was also my predecessor and is now Lord Biffen. He wisely commented:
    All Governments are tomorrow's possible Opposition.—[Official Report, 27 February 1986; Vol. 92, c. 1088.]
    [Interruption.] I am delighted that the Minister has noted that point, but I wonder whether she will take it to heart. She made a brief, dismissive speech and I do not think that she really understands the importance of what we are discussing tonight.
    Mr. Maclean: Before my hon. Friend criticises the Minister too much, I should point out that the guillotine motion is not her fault. She has been put up to do a job tonight as a departmental Minister when it should have been the Leader of the House. For the second time today, the right hon. Lady is skulking in her office instead of being at the Dispatch Box justifying the guillotine motions.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Which Minister is before us has nothing to do with the motion. I do not want any debate on that issue. I do not like to say it, but the speech of the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) is becoming repetitive.
    Mr. Paterson: Thank you for that helpful comment, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
    Mr. Hayes: I am a little disappointed that my hon. Friend has not chosen to consider the issue of the Parks
    796
    Regulation (Amendment) Act 1926 in relation to the guillotine motion, so perhaps he will take the opportunity to consider the Parks Regulation Act 1872 in that context. The 1872 Act preceded the introduction of guillotines but had debate proceeded at inordinate length, the then Government might have been moved to introduce guillotines much earlier. Will my hon. Friend give some consideration to the length and nature of the debate in 1872?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I want the hon. Gentleman to consider only the timetable motion.
    Mr. Paterson: I shall not be tempted by the diversion my hon. Friend offers. There is too much legislation going through the House and the Government are not drafting legislation properly. The only solution is to allow more time for detailed consideration. It is not to try to crash through four Bills in one evening and to curtail debate in this disgraceful manner. I oppose the motion.
    11.30 pm
    Mr. Eric Forth: We have heard some reference to the fact that the Leader of the House has not been seen or heard this evening. Last Thursday, she stunned the House when she announced the business for tonight. She said:
    The House is taking a great deal of time discussing legislation that is not contentious and that would not normally require much time in the House.
    That was one of the right hon. Lady's main justifications for this evening's motions. She also stated:
    No amendments were tabled in Committee to the Nuclear Safeguards Bill, which is an important and worthwhile measure to discourage the proliferation of nuclear weapons…the Royal Parks (Trading) Bill was uncontentious and supported by Opposition Members, and the Standing Committee sat only once.
    She complained that
    seven new clauses, 31 amendments and two new schedules were tabled to take up debating time on the Floor of the House.—[Official Report, 18 May 2000; Vol. 350, c. 459.]
    "Erskine May" states that consideration of a Bill on Report gives the House an opportunity to consider the text of a Bill "afresh". Does not that statement sanctify the Report stage, and make it clear that it is an opportunity for the House as a whole to consider a Bill after it has been in Committee?
    It has been noted already that the Committee stages of the two Bills under consideration were lamentably brief. The Royal Parks (Trading) Bill was not debated on the Floor of the House. It was smuggled surreptitiously through a Second Reading Committee, which sat for only 43 minutes—hardly time to do it justice. Its Standing Committee sat for only 35 minutes, and that was all the consideration given to the Bill before it came to the Floor of the House on Report.
    The Standing Committee considering the Television Licences (Disclosure of Information) Bill sat twice, for 31 minutes and for 92 minutes. Therefore, neither Bill has had the normal serious consideration in Committee. That would be bad enough, but the Leader of the House seemed to argue that the House should not bother with Report or Third Reading because no amendments had been tabled in Committee.

    797
    That is outrageous. Given her vast experience, we look to the Leader of the House for inspiration and guidance. I have been a Member of Parliament for only 17 years and I was a Minister for nine of them. Hon. Members like me look to her for guidance about the conduct of business in the House, but she seems to believe that Bills that have skidded through Committee do not deserve further attention on Report.
    Mr. Bercow: The Committee considering the Television Licences (Disclosure of Information) Bill sat for just over two hours, but six amendments and new clauses have been tabled for consideration tonight. In the light of what "Erskine May" has to say on the subject, does my right hon. Friend agree that that justifies much longer consideration of the Bill on Report than was given to it in Committee?
    Mr. Forth: Any rational person would have thought so, but apparently not. All logic has been stood on its head to justify this vicious attack on the House of Commons by the Government—something that we have come to learn, sadly, is only too typical, but with which we have to deal as best we can on this occasion.
    Scant attention in Committee, very brief sittings and no amendments tabled—something in which the Leader of the House seemed to take pride, rather peculiarly—were all bad enough. In addition, the Government insulted the House by scheduling other business before the Report stage of the Royal Parks (Trading) Bill, so we did not even start debating it until 4.38 pm. To make matters worse, the Government twisted the knife by putting on private business at 7 pm. The net result was that we had only a very little time in which to initiate the Report stage. Even in that short time, progress was made: two groups of amendments were properly dealt with, despite the fact that the Government had insulted the House of Commons by truncating the amount of time available.
    Mr. Maclean: Has my right hon. Friend any reason to believe that the Government deliberately curtailed the time available last week to discuss the amendments in an attempt to orchestrate a situation in which they could justify imposing a guillotine motion on it now?
    Mr. Forth: That suggests a degree of subtlety and intelligence on the Government's part of which I doubt they are capable. I suspect that this was cock-up, not conspiracy.
    I remind my right hon. Friend, who was in his place at the material time that, after the private business, we resumed our debate on the Bill at 9.10 pm and were making progress when the Government pulled the plug at 10 pm. To make this even more incredible, the Minister for the Arts said during the proceedings:
    It is proper that we should debate the proposals in the spirit of satisfying Parliament that the legislation proposed by the Government is necessary, well framed, proportionate—that has been mentioned several times—and therefore fit to proceed speedily on to the statute book.
    798
    The Minister acknowledged the role that the House of Commons and those of us present were playing in the Bill's consideration. He went on to say:
    it is appropriate to proceed as we are this afternoon, and I shall address myself to the amendments.—[Official Report, 17 May 2000; Vol. 350, c. 372.]
    Mr. Bercow: I do not have the relevant copy of the Official Report in front of me, but would my right hon. Friend confirm my recollection that those sentiments were uttered by the hon. Gentleman at a very early stage in the debate? The inference that we must draw, and the rationale for the allocation of time motion tonight, is that while the hon. Gentleman apparently had infectious enthusiasm at the beginning of the proceedings, he was soon dissuaded by others.
    Mr. Forth: What is so mysterious is that the Minister, having acknowledged the relevance and usefulness of the proceedings in which we were engaged at that time, then conspired with his fellow Ministers, and no doubt the Whips, to end the consideration of his own business at 10 o'clock, presumably to send the babes and others home to an early bed, and then forced the Government to come back with a guillotine motion that is forcing the babes to stay up until what I estimate will be 2 o'clock tomorrow morning. I hope that the Minister will be able to face the babes tomorrow, because when they realise that they could have had an early night and got the Bill over and done with, instead of having to sit here until an early hour of the morning because of this ill-thought-out guillotine motion, the Minister and his colleagues will be in real trouble.
    Mr. Hayes: If the sequence of events that my right hon. Friend describes is accurate, as it certainly seems from my recollection, surely it returns us to his earlier point about the role of the Leader of the House. He talked about the Leader of the House offering inspiration and guidance. I submit that the Leader of the House should also offer a measure of protection for the rights of the House—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have appealed for interventions to be brief, and that one is not. Interventions must be quick and sharp.
    Mr. Forth: Just like me, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Quick and sharp as ever, I shall move on now to—
    Mr. Bercow: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
    Mr. Forth: No, no. I shall not allow my hon. Friend to lead me astray. Following Mr. Deputy Speaker's guidance slavishly, as ever I do, I must move on to the main thrust of my argument. I have completed my preliminary remarks and must now get stuck into the real business.
    Let me return to the claim made by the Leader of the House—insouciant, I think, is the only word to describe it—that the matters before us are uncontentious. That is the ultimate insult. Right hon. and hon. Members who sat in previous Parliaments will remember such triumphs of consensual politics as the Child Support Agency and the Dangerous Dogs Act 1989. Those provisions were shoved through the House on an all-party basis, with agreement

    799
    but with brief and inadequate scrutiny. They ended up being some of the worst legislation ever inflicted on our citizenry.
    Allegedly uncontentious legislation is some of the worst that exists. I believe that consensus is essentially an evil political concept. Even worse, in the context of the current Parliament's proceedings, when a Bill is deemed uncontentious, we become lazy about it. These two Bills have gone through Committee without proper scrutiny, and now we are told that because they were uncontentious, there is no need to waste the time of the House on debating, scrutinising or seeking to amend them.
    That process is passing easily and seductively into the political language. It may be intended to let the babes go home early, but its net result is bad legislation.
    Mr. Fabricant rose—
    Mr. Forth: I shall give way, but I am warming to my theme.
    Mr. Fabricant: Does my right hon. Friend agree that he is offering a fine example of how a stitch in time can save nine? So-called non-contentious legislation such as that on the Child Support Agency and dangerous dogs has had to be debated over and over so that it can be amended. If it had been properly debated in the first place, less parliamentary time would have been taken up.
    Mr. Forth: That is very likely the case. What makes things worse is the fact that the two Bills that have been impudently described as uncontentious are in fact highly contentious. One need only glance at clause 4 of the Royal Parks (Trading) Bill—"Seizure of property"—or clause 5, which is entitled "Retention and disposal". The Bill gives the police considerably increased powers of seizure and confiscation of property from private individuals. That is highly contentious. If the Bill affected any other area of the law, Labour Members—those who bother to be here—would be outraged by the proposal to increase the powers of the police to confiscate property from vulnerable individual members of society. Not this time, however, because we have been told that the Bill is "uncontentious".
    The Television Licences (Disclosure of Information) Bill contains measures on "Disclosure of information", which involve supplying the BBC with social security information. The provision includes not only the BBC, however. It states that
    the BBC includes any person providing the BBC with services in connection with television licences.
    If that is not contentious, I do not know what is. These matters are highly contentious, yet the Government have had the nerve to try to smuggle them through the House and inflict them on a hapless populace on the basis that they are allegedly uncontentious.
    We must ask why the Government have seen fit to bring new clause 2 before the House this evening.
    Janet Anderson: Conservative Front Benchers asked for it.
    Mr. Forth: The Minister—I am glad to see that she is awake—may say that my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) asked for it. That is surely some
    800
    demonstration that enough was wrong with the Bill for my hon. Friend to spot it and to persuade the Government, in Committee, to change their Bill. The Government still try to persuade us that such Bills are uncontentious, even when they have to be amended.
    We are now in a fine pickle. These Bills—one of which did not even receive its Second Reading on the Floor of the House, and both of which went through a brief and truncated Committee stage—arrived for consideration on Report. One was making excellent progress—the Minister himself told us so—but had the plug pulled on it. Yet, when we are about to undertake such detailed consideration as we are allowed by the guillotine, we find that serious outstanding matters will probably not receive the proper attention of the House because there is no time.
    Mr. Bercow: Why, in justification of the Royal Parks (Trading) Bill, have Ministers felt it necessary constantly to denigrate and vilify the hot-dog and hamburger salesmen of the royal parks? Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if Ministers—including those who are usually courteous—opt for such a bitter and personal approach in this Chamber against those who do not have the opportunity to defend themselves, they should at least provide time for others—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The purpose of a timetable motion is not to go into the Bill in detail. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) is aware of that.
    Mr. Forth: Indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If time permits, we shall soon be able to undertake a little bit of detailed scrutiny—once the House has disposed of the guillotine motion. If the House were to give the motion its approval—as I sincerely hope it will not—then we should move to an all too brief consideration of the amendments that have been selected.
    The fact that amendments have been selected, especially on the television licensing measure, is proof that Madam Speaker considered that they were worthy of debate on the Floor of the House. Surely, that is all that is needed to show that the matter is serious and substantial and had to be dealt with. However, the Government did not seem to agree. They will restrict the debate so much that it is highly doubtful whether we shall be able to do justice to the amendments that were selected by Madam Speaker herself.
    It remains to be seen how much time the Government propose to take to persuade the House of the virtues and necessity of their new clause. That will be a test of the persuasiveness and commitment of Ministers—something of which we have seen little during the debate so far, especially on the part of the absent Leader of the House. However, the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting and the Minister for the Arts are both in their places, ready to help the House through the remaining stages of our proceedings on the measures. They will have their work cut out trying to persuade us that we should dispatch—in the little time available to us under their guillotine—the remaining business set down for the Bills.
    That would be bad enough, but, on the television licensing measure, we have to deal not only with new clause 2, which would add a considerable, substantial

    801
    and—for all I know—controversial provision, but with other amendments. I tabled two of those that were selected by Madam Speaker—I am flattered by that. The others were tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean). He, too, has seen fit to try to amend the Bill in order to improve it further. However, I very much doubt whether we shall have the opportunity to do that at this stage.
    Sadly, the House finds itself in an invidious position. We shall almost certainly be unable to devote a proper amount of time to the amendments, even though they were selected by Madam Speaker and thus, by definition, relevant and important. We may well have to rely on another place—I hate to hear myself say that—to give proper scrutiny to the Bill. If we in the House of Commons cannot adequately discharge our responsibility to scrutinise legislation, and if the Government persist in introducing guillotines, with all their arrogance and contempt for the House, I can but conclude that, in order to do justice to the parliamentary process of scrutiny, we shall have to look to Members in another place to undertake the job that we are proved unable to do. I regret that. As you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I try to play my modest part in the scrutiny of Bills. I do my best, as do my—
    The Minister for Trade (Mr. Richard Caborn): The right hon. Gentleman is in opposition now.
    Mr. Forth: The right hon. Gentleman, whom I welcome to the Chamber, suggests in an accusatory tone that I am in opposition. I had rumbled that fact and I have now come to appreciate it. He has known me for many years and in many different guises, and I tell him that I take my job in opposition seriously. I regard it as one of my duties to do what I can properly to scrutinise legislation and properly to hold the Government to account. Yes—I say this in the House, so it will not go any further—I admit that I occasionally seek to delay the Government imposing more and more legislation on my hapless voters. Many of my right hon. and hon. Friends do the same thing. Is the right hon. Gentleman accusing me of something of which I should be ashamed because the truth could not be more different? I see that he seems to be endorsing what I do in opposition and I am grateful for that.
    The Minister for the Arts has put on the record how he appreciated and approved of what we did in our scrutiny of the Royal Parks (Trading) Bill and the Minister for Trade, who has joined the debate at this late hour, has endorsed my description of what I seek to do in opposition. I could not seek for any greater support.
    Mr. Bercow: My right hon. Friend has rightly castigated the Government for their restrictions on debate. Given that 13 new clauses and amendments have been selected for debate on the Bills, will he estimate how long he thinks it will take the House to give proper consideration on Report and Third Reading to those new clauses and amendments if every Member in the Chamber were willing to make a short contribution?
    Mr. Forth: I shall provide two estimates that are relevant to the guillotine motion, which is about timetabling.
    802
    My first estimate is based on the progress that we made on the Royal Parks (Trading) Bill last week and demonstrated that we could make. Two groups of amendments were dispatched between 4.38 pm and 7 pm and we gained the praise of the Minister for the Arts for that. We were well through the third group, on which we are about to resume debate, when the Government pulled the plug on us. Therefore, on that basis, I estimate that, last week, we could have probably dispatched all the Bill's stages by 11.30 pm or midnight at the latest.
    My hon. Friend poses an even less likely scenario. If docile Labour Members and the absent babes—were they to be here—were capable of making speeches, which few of them are, and if they wanted to participate in the proceedings of the House, which few of them do, I suspect that it might take longer to complete our proceedings. However, because few Labour Members turn up, none of them choose to speak and the few who are capable of speaking have been silenced by their Whips, I do not think that we can expect what my hon. Friend suggests. That is a cause of great disappointment to me. Although the Government Whips smile with smug satisfaction at their silencing of their colleagues, it does little credit to the House that they have been so successful. Ministers may smile to themselves as well, but it does them no credit that they rely on a vicious guillotine of the type that we are debating to ram through the House the Bills that they expect us to endorse.
    My final point to Ministers is that they should not expect the other place to treat the Bills as lightly as they have forced this House to treat them. The Government will be held to account if not in this House, then in another place—and so they should be. I predict that that unpleasant surprise will await them when the Bills reach—
    It being three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 83 (Allocation of time to bills).
    The House divided: Ayes 256, Noes 109.

    Division No. 204]

    [11.54 pm

    AYES

    Ainger, Nick

    Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

    Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

    Campbell-Savours, Dale

    Atkins, Charlotte

    Cann, Jamie

    Austin, John

    Caplin, Ivor

    Banks, Tony

    Casale, Roger

    Barnes, Harry

    Caton, Martin

    Bayley, Hugh

    Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

    Beard, Nigel

    Clapham, Michael

    Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

    Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

    Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

    Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

    Bennett, Andrew F

    Berry, Roger

    Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

    Blackman, Liz

    Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

    Blizzard, Bob

    Clwyd, Ann

    Bradley, Keith (Withington)

    Coaker, Vernon

    Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Bradshaw, Ben

    Cohen, Harry

    Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

    Colman, Tony

    Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

    Connarty, Michael

    Browne, Desmond

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Burden, Richard

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Burgon, Colin

    Cousins, Jim

    Butler, Mrs Christine

    Crausby, David

    803

    Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Cummings, John

    Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

    Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

    Keeble, Ms Sally

    Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

    Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

    Dalyell, Tam

    Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

    Darvill, Keith

    Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Khabra, Piara S

    Davidson, Ian

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

    Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

    King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

    Dawson, Hilton

    Ladyman, Dr Stephen

    Dean, Mrs Janet

    Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

    Donohoe, Brian H

    Laxton, Bob

    Doran, Frank

    Lepper, David

    Dowd, Jim

    Levitt, Tom

    Drew, David

    Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

    Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

    Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

    Efford, Clive

    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

    Fitzpatrick, Jim

    McCabe, Steve

    Flint, Caroline

    McCafferty, Ms Chris

    Flynn, Paul

    McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

    Follett, Barbara

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    McDonagh, Siobhain

    Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

    Macdonald, Calum

    Fyfe, Maria

    McDonnell, John

    Galloway, George

    McGuire, Mrs Anne

    Gerrard, Neil

    McIsaac, Shona

    Gilroy, Mrs Linda

    McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

    Godsiff, Roger

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Goggins, Paul

    McNulty, Tony

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    MacShane, Denis

    Gordon, Mrs Eileen

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

    McWalter, Tony

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Mallaber, Judy

    Grocott, Bruce

    Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

    Grogan, John

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Hain, Peter

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    Marshall-Andrews, Robert

    Hanson, David

    Martlew, Eric

    Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

    Maxton, John

    Heal, Mrs Sylvia

    Meale, Alan

    Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

    Merron, Gillian

    Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

    Michael, Rt Hon Alun

    Hepburn, Stephen

    Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

    Heppell, John

    Mitchell, Austin

    Hesford, Stephen

    Moffatt, Laura

    Hill, Keith

    Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

    Hinchliffe, David

    Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

    Hoey, Kate

    Morley, Elliot

    Hope, Phil

    Mountford, Kali

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    Mudie, George

    Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

    Mullin, Chris

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

    Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

    O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    Olner, Bill

    Hurst, Alan

    O'Neill, Martin

    Hutton, John

    Pearson, Ian

    Iddon, Dr Brian

    Pendry, Tom

    Illsley, Eric

    Perham, Ms Linda

    Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

    Pickthall, Colin

    Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

    Pike, Peter L

    Jamieson, David

    Plaskitt, James

    Jenkins, Brian

    Pond, Chris

    Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

    Pope, Greg

    Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

    Pound, Stephen

    Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

    Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

    Purchase, Ken

    Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

    804

    Quinn, Lawrie

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Radice, Rt Hon Giles

    Taylor, David (NW Leics)

    Rammell, Bill

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Rapson, Syd

    Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

    Raynsford, Nick

    Tipping, Paddy

    Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

    Touhig, Don

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    Trickett, Jon

    Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

    Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

    Rowlands, Ted

    Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

    Roy, Frank

    Turner, Neil (Wigan)

    Ruane, Chris

    Twigg, Derek (Halton)

    Salter, Martin

    Tynan, Bill

    Sarwar, Mohammad

    Vis, Dr Rudi

    Savidge, Malcolm

    Walley, Ms Joan

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Ward, Ms Claire

    Singh, Marsha

    Wareing, Robert N

    Skinner, Dennis

    Watts, David

    Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

    Whitehead, Dr Alan

    Smith, Angela (Basildon)

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

    Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

    Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Wilson, Brian

    Soley, Clive

    Winnick, David

    Spellar, John

    Wood, Mike

    Starkey, Dr Phyllis

    Woolas, Phil

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Wray, James

    Stevenson, George

    Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

    Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

    Wyatt, Derek

    Stinchcombe, Paul

    Stoate, Dr Howard

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

    Mr. Clive Betts and

    Stringer, Graham

    Mr. Robert Ainsworth.

    NOES

    Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

    Gill, Christopher

    Amess, David

    Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Bercow, John

    Green, Damian

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Greenway, John

    Blunt, Crispin

    Gummer, Rt Hon John

    Boswell, Tim

    Hammond, Philip

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

    Hawkins, Nick

    Brady, Graham

    Hayes, John

    Brazier, Julian

    Heald, Oliver

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Burns, Simon

    Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

    Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

    Hunter, Andrew

    Jack, Rt Hon Michael

    Cash, William

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

    Key, Robert

    Laing, Mrs Eleanor

    Chope, Christopher

    Leigh, Edward

    Clappison, James

    Letwin, Oliver

    Collins, Tim

    Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

    Cormack, Sir Patrick

    Lidington, David

    Cotter, Brian

    Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

    Cran, James

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Curry, Rt Hon David

    Loughton, Tim

    Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Day, Stephen

    McIntosh, Miss Anne

    Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

    Maclean, Rt Hon David

    Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

    Faber, David

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Fabricant, Michael

    Madel, Sir David

    Fearn, Ronnie

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Flight, Howard

    O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

    Forth, Rt Hon Eric

    Ottaway, Richard

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    Paterson, Owen

    Fox, Dr Liam

    Pickles, Eric

    Fraser, Christopher

    Randall, John

    Gale, Roger

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    Garnier, Edward

    Rendel, David

    George, Andrew (St Ives)

    Robathan, Andrew

    Gibb, Nick

    Robertson, Laurence

    Gidley, Sandra

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

    805

    Ruffley, David

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Russell, Bob (Colchester)

    Taylor, Sir Teddy

    St Aubyn, Nick

    Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

    Sanders, Adrian

    Tredinnick, David

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Trend, Michael

    Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

    Tyrie, Andrew

    Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

    Webb, Steve

    Spelman, Mrs Caroline

    Whitney, Sir Raymond

    Spicer, Sir Michael

    Whittingdale, John

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Wilkinson, John

    Steen, Anthony

    Willis, Phil

    Streeter, Gary

    Stunell, Andrew

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Swayne, Desmond

    Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown

    Syms, Robert

    and

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Mr. Peter Luff.

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Royal Parks (Trading) Bill and the Television Licences (Disclosure of Information) Bill—

    Timetable
    1.—(1) Remaining proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading of the Royal Parks (Trading) Bill shall be completed at today's sitting and brought to a conclusion (if not previously concluded) four hours after the commencement of proceedings on this Motion.
    (2) Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading of the Television Licences (Disclosure of Information) Bill shall be completed at today's sitting and brought to a conclusion (if not previously concluded) five hours after the commencement of proceedings on this Motion.

    Questions to be put
    2.—(1) This paragraph applies for the purpose of bringing proceedings on either Bill to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1.
    (2) The Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

    (a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;

    (b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;

    806

    (c) the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown;

    (d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded.

    (3) On a Motion made for a new Clause or Schedule, the Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.
    (4) If two or more Questions would otherwise fall to be put under sub-paragraph (2)(c) on amendments moved or Motions made by a Minister of the Crown, the Speaker shall instead put a single Question in relation to those amendments or Motions.

    Miscellaneous
    3. Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply at today's sitting to proceedings to which this Order applies.
    4. Proceedings to which this Order applies shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
    5. No Motion shall be made to alter the order in which proceedings on either Bill are taken or to recommit either Bill.
    6. No dilatory Motion shall be made in relation to either Bill except by a Minister of the Crown; and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
    7. If at today's sitting—

    (a) a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 24 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) has been stood over to Seven o'clock; but

    (b) proceedings to which this Order applies have begun before then,

    proceedings on that Motion shall stand postponed until the conclusion of those proceedings.
    8. Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply to either Bill.

    Supplemental orders
    9. The proceedings on any motion made by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall (if not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced; and Standing Order No. 15(1) shall apply to those proceedings.
    10. If at today's sitting the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the time at which any proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion under this Order, no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

  Royal Parks (Trading) Bill
  Not amended in the Standing Committee, further considered.
  Royal Parks (Trading) Bill

    After Clause 3
    Amendment proposed [17 May]: No. 6, in page 2, line 4, to leave out clauses 4 and 5—[Mr. Maclean.]
    12.8 am
    Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): I remind the House that with this we are discussing the following: Amendment No. 28, in page 2, line 13, at end insert—
    '(4) Where a park constable exercises his powers under subsection (1) above he shall—

    (a) ensure that he provides facilities for the safe removal from the park of any perishable material by the person having possession or control;

    (b) give to the person having possession or control a document, in an appropriate language, setting out the reasons for the seizure, itemising the things seized and informing the person of his rights and liabilities under section 5; and

    (c) not remove any article until he has performed an assessment under the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations that the removal of the thing or things would not create a hazard for his or others' health and safety.

    (5) The document referred to in subsection (4)(b) above shall comply with the model in Schedule (Document relating to seizure of property).'.
    Amendment No. 22, in page 2, line 20, after "at", insert "or before".
    Amendment No. 23, in page 2, line 26, at end insert—
    '(3A) Proceedings arising from subsections (1) to (3) (including appeals) shall be concluded within a period of three months, after which the charges shall be withdrawn, or appeal deemed to have succeeded.'.
    Amendment No. 24, in page 2, line 30, leave out from first "of' to second "of" and insert—
    '60 days beginning with the date of the initiation'.
    Amendment No. 25, in page 2, line 35, at end insert—
    '(5A) If the Secretary of State has retained a thing under subsection (3)(b) for the period of 60 days from the initiation of proceedings relating to the offence (including any appeal), he shall return it to the person from whom it was seized.'.
    Amendment No. 7, in clause 6, page 3, line 2, leave out from "anything" to end of line 8 and insert—
    'which the court believes to have been used in commission of the offence to be forfeited and dealt with in a manner specified in the order.'.
    New schedule 2—`SCHEDULE—

    After Clause 3

      Document Relating to Seizure of Property
      '(1) Appropriate Language.
      An appropriate language in section 4(4)(b) is one of the following:

      English

      French

      Spanish

      Albanian

      Arabic

      808

      Armenian

      Azeri

      Belarussian

      Bulgarian

      Croatian (the western variant of Serbo-Croat—also called Croato-Serb)

      Estonian

      Georgian

      Greek

      Hungarian

      Kurdish

      Latvian

      Lithuanian

      Macedonian

      Romanian

      Russian

      Serbian (the eastern variant of Serbo-Croat)

      Serbo-Croat

      Slovak

      Slovene

      Turkish

      Ukrainian.

      (2) Reasons for Seizure.
      The reasons for the seizure are that the person having possession or control has committed a Park Trading Offence, namely (insert offence).
      (3) List of Items Seized.
      (List the items seized)
      (4) Rights and Liabilities.
      The person having possession or control and from whom the thing or things were seized shall be informed that—

      (a) the Secretary of State may retain the thing or things until the conclusion of court proceedings;

      (b) the Secretary of State may sell the thing or things and use the proceeds to pay his costs if the person having possession or control is found guilty of an offence;

      (c) the court may order the thing or things to be forfeited and destroyed if found guilty of an offence;

      (d) the person having possession of the thing or things may make representations to the court about their disposal before the court makes an order.'.

      Mr. Christopher Chope: Last Wednesday, I was interrupted by the Government, who were obviously nervous about further debate on the Bill. We could have covered the ground in a short time then. However, I can assure the House that I shall not take up the whole hour that has been allocated.
      The amendments, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) so ably moved, raise some important issues. Clauses 4 and 5 are likely to have unintended consequences. We want to achieve the highest catering standards in our royal parks.
      It emerged that there are insufficient vendors of such goods in the royal parks, as the Minister said:
      Licensed traders are losing a significant amount of business. Their turnover has been substantially reduced—by about 50 per cent. since the mid-1990s.—[Official Report, 17 May 2000; Vol. 350, c. 373.]
      He added that illegal traders are proliferating and making as much as £1,200 a day. I asked him how clauses 4 and 5 will deal with the problem in practice, as the parks police will be able to seize the carts but not the perishable

      809
      goods. So the Bill contains a deterrent against the parks police acting effectively and pre-emptively by seizing carts as soon as they pass through the gates. I cannot understand why they seem to tolerate carts being set up, large queues forming and vending taking place. Why do not they seize the illegal carts as soon as they enter the parks?
      Mr. Patrick Nicholls: I may be able to help my hon. Friend. I understand that the Bill will require an arresting officer to separate the imperishable machine from its perishable contents. He may have to remove the boiling fat to impound a vendor's machine.
      Mr. Chope: I am sure that my hon. Friend's reading of the Bill is correct, and I suggest that the Government rethink the proposal. They should amend the Bill before it goes to the other place to enable the parks police to seize perishable goods as well, or the lacuna will defeat the object.
      In the past month, I dealt with a constituency case relating to gypsies. The police on the ground have to deal with the legislation passed by the House; and passing legislation raises people's expectations—in this example, those of people affected by gypsies. As soon as the gypsies arrive, the police say, "There are all sorts of practical constraints on what we are able to do. We need hundreds of officers. Where shall we move the vehicles to? What shall we do about the women and children and access for the emergency services?" When I visited my local police station I was told, "Unfortunately, the legislation that you passed in the House of Commons is not much practical use in this situation." I fear that we are entering the same territory with these provisions.
      Mr. John Bercow: How can the Minister guesstimate the daily turnover of the average trader in a royal park when he is unable to tell us the prices of their products or the volume of their daily sales?
      Mr. Chope: I hope that the Minister can answer my hon. Friend. Government spokesmen have been quick to say that rip-offs take place, but I cannot understand whether the general public are deterred from buying goods from authorised vendors because of the price or because there are too few such vendors in the parks. Both explanations are possible, but people seem to choose to buy from illegal vendors despite unclean conditions and what the Minister would describe as rip-off prices.
      Mr. David Maclean: In this week of the Chelsea flower show, when the prices of hamburgers and hot dogs at Chelsea are higher than those charged by vendors in the royal parks, who is committing the rip-off? Might it not appear that those selling the hot dogs and hamburgers have a rather competitive commodity?
      12.15 am
      Mr. Chope: My right hon. Friend makes a good point.
      One of the problems may well be that the royal parks must recover from the licence fees that they charge their authorised vendors sufficient money to be able to continue
      810
      their other responsibilities. If we burden the parks police with the extra expense involved in having to look after the goods that have been seized, and storing them so that they can be restored if the courts make an order in due course, how will the additional costs be recovered other than by the imposition of increased fees on authorised and licensed vendors? I suspect that one of the biggest rip-offs in the royal parks now is caused by the fact that the licence fee that authorised vendors must pay is far higher than it should be, and that, if it were lower, charges to customers could be reduced.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying rather wide of the amendment.
      Mr. Chope: I accept your reprimand, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      Mr. John Hayes: Nevertheless, Mr. Deputy Speaker, my hon. Friend is right, in the strict terms of the amendment, to draw attention to the issue of enforceability. As you will know, that issue has punctuated consideration of our governance of the royal parks throughout our dealings with the subject. I refer again to the 1872 and 1926 Acts that I mentioned earlier, and, in particular, would ask my hon. Friend to recall Second Reading of the Bill, when precisely this issue was raised.
      Mr. Chope: I shall leave my hon. Friend to make his own speech, which he is extremely well qualified to do. I observe that he has brought some thick tomes into the Chamber. My point is limited to the practicality of what the Government propose. I fear that, in due course, there will be a demand for fresh, amended legislation, because the Bill in its current form will not achieve the purpose that the Government intend.
      What could be simpler than this? Anyone who is a potential illegal vendor takes his cart into the park; as soon as he enters the gates, he should be arrested. It should be possible for both the cart and the perishable items on it to be seized and taken away. If that happens regularly, it will not be long before people do not even bring their carts in.
      I suspect that the parks police will be inhibited about seizing the property as soon as it enters the park, because they will not know what to do with the perishable items. If the vendor sells some of those items, there will be less of a problem for the parks police to pick up later. As a consequence, the parks police will not be so quick to make seizures and the illegal trading will continue, as will the £1,200 a day that these people can make.
      Mr. Edward Leigh: I am at a loss to understand what all the fuss is about. I pass these vendors hundreds of times, and I have never been tempted to buy the disgusting, revolting, smelly rubbish that they sell. Why on earth do we need legislation?
      Mr. Maclean: Very tasty, I think.
      Mr. Chope: I am confining my remarks to the context of this group of amendments. I know that engaging in a Second Reading debate would not find favour with you, Mr. Deputy Speaker; that is why I am not challenging the

      811
      principle of the Bill. However, like my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), I am a great believer in the marketplace. I suspect that at present there is insufficient legitimate provision of hamburgers and—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman is about to do what he said he was not going to do.
      Mr. Chope: I am sorry that my hon. Friend tempted me in that direction, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      Mr. Leigh: I apologise.
      Mr. Chope: No, I will accept the responsibility.
      I know that many of my hon. Friends are keen to speak, but let me tell them that I think it would be worth while if, in this curtailed debate, we allowed the Minister sufficient time to answer some of the points that have been made.
      Mr. Nicholls: We were told earlier that we do not need to have this debate as this matter is uncontentious. We can do no better than look at the headings on Madam Speaker's selection list of amendments to realise that nothing could be further from the truth. The first is:
      Powers of seizure, retention and disposal of property.
      I cannot think of anything more contentious than seizure of privately owned property, which is retained and disposed of by the state. Amendments Nos. 6, 28, 22 to 25 and 7 deal with that issue, but if the legislation had been properly thought through, it could have been addressed in the Bill.
      The amendments deal with the legislative brutality of the Bill. Clause 4 could be straight out of Monty Python. It states:
      A park constable who reasonably suspects that a person has committed a park trading offence may, subject to subsection (2), seize anything of a non-perishable nature.
      When policemen try to seize anything of a non-perishable nature they do so at their own risk.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker, consider what might happen if you were a special constable and you went into the park to try to seize goods of an non-perishable nature. That may seem unlikely, but it makes the point. You may be confronted by a hot-dog van. I have never prepared hot dogs in a royal park—it has never come to that—but I assume that it requires a vat of boiled fat. My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) seems to think that hot dogs are greasy. What is a policeman supposed to do? Is he supposed to say that he will seize the vat but not the fat? Is he supposed to require the fat to be emptied out of the container before he can seize it? Is he supposed to do that himself? Is he supposed to require the person to whom it belongs to empty the fat for him?
      Mr. Desmond Swayne: Under the new schedule that my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) has tabled, is the policeman required to ask the vendor to remove the fat in a western variant of Serbo-Croat?
      Mr. Nicholls: I knew my hon. Friend was going to ask me that, and I am grateful to him—I will see him
      812
      afterwards. I shall deal with new schedule 2 later. Although it is the inspiration of my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), I am not sure that it is as good as the other amendments in the group.
      Mr. Bercow: Amendment No. 28(c) refers to
      an assessment under the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations.
      There are important arguments about the seizure of property and the rights of the private person, but why should a constable imperil his health in the removal of said property on the assumption that he is wearing a pair of gloves and a mask?
      Mr. Nicholls: The formula to be used on these occasions is to say that my hon. Friend will make his own speech in his own way. I shall come on to the COSHH regulations, because they are relevant under paragraph (c) of amendment No. 28. Before I get there, however, it is important to consider the dilemma that will face an officer who is about to seize goods of a non-perishable nature.
      There is no requirement in the legislation for an officer to do that. It merely says that he "may": it does not say that he shall. It does not require him to seek the assistance of the person to whom this equipment belongs. There is a right at common law for any officer making an arrest in the execution of his duty to require a passing member of the public to help him in that seizure. My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough is a barrister, so he can confirm that. It seems inconceivable that a policeman could require some passer-by to help him to seize an errant hot-dog van with a view to getting rid of the fat, so that he is left with equipment of a non-perishable nature.
      I say that not in a misplaced attempt at levity, but to make the following point. I did not always have to come here to earn a living. I used to have an honest day job: I was a lawyer. I was a humble country lawyer—well, a country lawyer. One of the things that I had to do was deal with legislation passed by the House which simply had not been thought through. This legislation has not been thought through in any shape or form. The idea that the legislation enables a policeman practically or safely to go around arresting and seizing equipment owned by hot-dog vendors is nonsense.
      Mr. Maclean: I had a feeling that my hon. Friend was about to pass on. Before he does so, has he an answer to the question that was posed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) when we debated the matter the last time? What advice does he give to the policeman, or to the chestnut seller who finds that his hot brazier has been confiscated and then must find somewhere to put his hot nuts?
      Mr. Nicholls: I know that the formula on this occasion is not to follow my right hon. Friend, but it is a fair point. The legislation is for all practical purposes unworkable. If any hot-dog vendor was concerned that his equipment would be seized, he could ensure that the perishable and non-perishable elements were so intermingled as to make it impossible.

      813
      To be fair to my right hon. Friend, he has in his amendments anticipated the problems that the measure would cause. I draw the House's attention to amendment No. 28:
      Where a park constable exercises his powers—
      one might say at his peril—
      under subsection (1) above he shall—
      (a) ensure that he provides facilities for the safe removal from the park of any perishable material by the person having possession or control.
      Indeed, but how is that to take place? I do not blame my right hon. Friend for posing that question. He puts down the obligation, but had the matter been properly thought through by Treasury counsel, that would have been addressed. I know why it has not been addressed. I will come to that point, but the next point that my right hon. Friend makes is so absolutely self-evident that one wonders again why the Government did not deal with it themselves.
      The amendment says that the park constable shall
      give to the person having possession or control a document, in an appropriate language.
      I can see from new schedule 2 that a number of languages are selected for that purpose. They include English, French, Spanish, Albanian, Arabic, Armenian, Azeri, Belarussian, Bulgarian, Croatian, Estonian, Georgian, Greek, Hungarian, Kurdish, Latvian, Lithuanian, Macedonian, Romanian, Russian, Slovak, Slovene, Turkish and Ukrainian. I wondered how that would address the situation of a hot-dog seller who had decided to diversify into curry. I did not understand why there was no reference to Urdu, Gujerati, or a language such as those. I understand from my right hon. Friend that he chose that formula because the Minister had opined that the legislation was being introduced on the assumption that all dodgy hot-dog vendors are Albanian.
      If I made such a remark outside the House, or even inside it, I would be accused of being racist, but my right hon. Friend has had to draft legislation to deal with the Minister's preconception and, indeed, obsession with the idea that anyone who is trying to earn a modest living as a hot-dog vendor in a royal park is likely to be able to understand only eastern European languages. I find that remarkable. The only criticism that I have of my right hon. Friend is that it seems that he has not considered that the various languages that he has listed in new schedule 2 may not be sufficient, but it is a fair point all the same.
      The next point is perhaps the most important in relation to amendment No. 28. It says that the park constable shall
      (c) not remove any article until he has performed an assessment under the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations that the removal of the thing or things would not create a hazard for his or others' health and safety.
      When I read that, I felt young again. I felt that my lines were going—I felt young and vital. I recognised those very words from all those years ago, when I was the Minister in charge of the Health and Safety Executive. Once upon a time, my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border, too, was young. I think that he is casting his mind back to those days, when he, too, was responsible for assessments under what are now known as the COSHH regulations.
      814
      12.30 am
      Those who are not familiar with the COSHH regulations might think that they cover not so much vats of fat as vats of sulphuric acid. However, that is not true. As many small business men know, any substance on their premises that might be hazardous to health—even vats of stored water—have to be assessed under the COSHH regulations. That issue has not been addressed in the Bill. Are we really in the business of requiring our brave police officers to have to arrest hot-dog vendors without performing the type of assessment under the COSHH regulations that people in other situations are required to make? I think not. The issue should have been addressed in the Bill, but it has not.
      I am not sure that the drafting of amendment No. 28 is exactly right. However—to be fair to my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border—what is one to do with a Bill that is so woefully drafted that one has to bolt on provisions that should have been thought through in its very philosophy?
      Mr. Bercow: May I direct my hon. Friend's attention to amendment No. 25, one of the possible merits of which is that, in seeking to limit the period in which the non-perishable goods remain confiscated from the vendor, the vendor will thereby at least have the chance to make his own legitimate living—whereas if clause 5 were not to be amended, the likelihood is that, for a very significant and possibly unlimited time, while the vendor was struggling to pay the costs due to the Secretary of State, he would be prevented from making a living? That cannot, on the face of it, be justified or in accordance with the Government's protestations of supporting the underdog.
      Mr. Nicholls: My hon. Friend is exactly right, and he takes me on to the next amendments in this group. His mistake, however, is to impute to the Government a desire to help small business men to stand on their own two feet. He says that he is not sure that the clause will enable them to do that, but I think that he is being misled by his own good intentions. I do not find anything in the Bill—in its structure or its ethos—that indicates for one moment that the Government are trying to help small business men. What they are trying to do is to suppress small business men. That is what the Bill is all about.
      A moment or two ago, I said that I had been trying to work out what it was about the thinking behind the Bill that was so defective that the Government would propose the legislation, but overlook considerations of practical points such as COSHH regulations and the appropriate language for the warning document. I think that it comes down to what my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border said a little earlier about the danger of consensus. The Bill was never meant to be scrutinised. The mind behind the Bill—if one can talk about such a thing in relation to this Bill—never considered the legislation's practical consequences, such as the dangers inherent in requiring police to go round confiscating such equipment and the effects of such action on small traders. The Bill was not drafted for that purpose.
      The Bill was drafted to be passed on the nod. It was drafted on the assumption that the Government had only to propose mild-sounding legislation—the type that enables some hon. Members to make cheap remarks about

      815
      people who have to earn a living in a far harder way than hon. Members have to—that could be passed not so much on the nod as on the sneer. That is the way in which this legislation was designed. What my right. hon. and hon. Friends and I have tried to do is to show that that is simply not acceptable, and that we are right to perform our duty of scrutiny.
      Mr. Swayne: My hon. Friend has mentioned the suppression of small business men. He will be aware that the Bill's supporters have alleged that the vendors who will be affected by it are, far from being small business men, the representatives of organised crime—the mafia has been mentioned. Does not that in itself constitute a hazard of which the arresting officer would do well to be aware?
      Mr. Nicholls: It may do, but one must bear in mind the fact that when the Home Secretary was working up his policies for a new Government for a new millennium, he saw squeegee merchants as public enemy No. 1. For all I know, they may now have diversified into selling hot dogs in royal parks, but they were providing a service. I have never felt threatened by a squeegee merchant. I find it quite useful to have my windscreen cleaned when I am at a level crossing.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am not sure that those merchants are the subject of the amendments before the House.
      Mr. Nicholls: I accept that. As so often, my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) tempts us down forbidden ways. The same thinking that made squeegee merchants a substantial public threat underlies the idea that someone who is selling economically priced burgers might also be a substantial threat.
      What do amendments Nos. 22, 23, 24 and 25 do? Nothing very revolutionary or extraordinary. One might have thought that their provisions would have been contained in a Bill that sanctions the seizure and disposal of other people's property. Amendment No. 23 says:
      Proceedings arising from subsections (1) to (3) (including appeals) shall be concluded within a period of three months, after which the charges shall be withdrawn, or the appeal deemed to have succeeded.
      That merely means that someone whose equipment has been seized should be prosecuted within a reasonable period. That principle goes with the grain of British law. It does not go with the grain of nobbling the police to go easy on people who are trying to demonstrate about one of the most ruthless criminal regimes in the world, but it goes with the grain of English common law. If someone is not prosecuted within a reasonable period, that should be an end of the matter.
      What happens to a person's property if they are not prosecuted? Under the Bill, nothing will happen to it. The state has seized it and that is the end of it. Amendment No. 25 says:
      If the Secretary of State has retained a thing under subsection (3)(b) for the period of 60 days from the initiation of proceedings relating to the offence (including any appeal), he shall return it to the person from whom it was seized.
      Again, that does not strike me as a revolutionary proposition. If we take people's equipment away from them and then not use it—the mind boggles at the idea of
      816
      the Secretary of State doing a bit of trading on his own account—surely there should be some provision for its return. The amendment does just that.
      I would like to think well of the Minister. I have known him for a number of years and I would like to think that he has listened to the debate and will cast his mind back to the principles that he once held dear. I hope that he thinks that a Bill that he is putting through the House to seize private property might benefit from the inclusion of some provision for the return of that property. It might benefit from having some decent British lawfulness built back into it.
      Mr. Owen Paterson: Does my hon. Friend think that the Bill is getting at the wrong people? Last Wednesday, the Minister pointed out that very little cash is found on the people concerned, because there is a system of runners to take the money back to those who control them. He said later that
      the police should make every effort to get the racketeers who lie behind the trade.—[Official Report, 17 May 2000; Vol. 350, c. 374.]
      Does my hon. Friend think that we might just be scratching the surface—the poor innocents who are handing out the hot dogs—rather than getting at the big men with the money who are running those illegal businesses?
      Mr. Nicholls: I try to wrestle with the concept of Mr. Big—the sort of person who slips £1 million to somebody for changing party policy. I understand that big money can sometimes be involved, but I do not think that there is big money involved in flogging hamburgers. Perhaps I chose the wrong trade when I went into law.
      Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend is a very sophisticated fellow, but I fear that he is missing one point. Is not his advocacy of the amendments characterised by moderation and reasonableness, rather in the style of the advocacy of our hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) in support of the Bill, whereas the stance and style of the Minister, for all his other attractive qualities, has been characterised at heart by a deep-rooted and snobbish disdain for the traders?
      Mr. Nicholls: There is consistency in some things, as my hon. Friend is right to point out. It is perhaps a sign of the times that those small traders—the sort of people who cannot afford to pay £500 to go to a Labour party fund-raising function—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is now straying way wide of the mark. I would be grateful if he would come back specifically to the amendment.
      Mr. Nicholls: I was simply trying to make the point—I accept that I did not do so appropriately—that the Bill, with all its inadequacies, says something about the attitude of the party that proposed it to people who are in as small a business as this.
      I would like to think that the Minister would build back into the Bill some sense of fairness and practicality. If not, there remains the other place. We know that the other place was not thought to be a problem for a Bill of this sort. It was thought that, following the creation of a house of cronies, there would be no scrutiny. The other place

      817
      has surprised us all, and probably even itself. When it looks at this debate, I think that it will say that this is a cause worth championing. I hope the other place will see it in that way.
      Mr. John Greenway: This has been an important debate. My right hon. and hon. Friends have tried to address whether the clauses as drafted have the desired effect, or whether—because there appears to be no power to seize perishable goods—there is some practical imperfection that will render the operation of the police in implementing the Bill almost impossible.
      When I first read the Bill, I had a similar concern. The practical answer is that, in reality, this presents no difficulty. As the Minister has said, within the City of Westminster—where the power already exists—police officers or council officials invite the trader to have the perishable goods removed. Because the goods have value, they are, by and large, removed.
      I contrast the powers given to the police under the Bill with the more general powers of the arrest of illegal traders who are, for example, causing an obstruction. I have referred to my practical experience more than 30 years ago of dealing with such traders. In those days, the police did not have a power of seizure. The practical solution was that, if a hot-dog trader was arrested for causing an obstruction somewhere in the west end of London, it was perfectly natural that he would take his cart and the perishable goods to the police station. Otherwise, the chances were that it would not be there when he came back. No power of seizure was required for that practical solution.
      The power of seizure adds an important weapon to the armoury of the authorities. The hot-dog stand will be taken off to a police station while the person's arrest is properly documented, whereupon he will take the cart away with him to pursue his illegal trade further. The power of seizure means that the trader no longer has that opportunity, as the police will seize the item at the police station, and the perishable goods can be removed.
      12.45 am
      I understand that there appears to be a practical difficulty, but the arrangements in the City of Westminster seem to work perfectly normally. The Bill will replicate those arrangements in the royal parks, and I hope that my hon. Friends will be persuaded that no substantial practical difficulty exists.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) asked why items should not be seized as they arrive in the royal parks. The answer to that splendid suggestion is that, under the royal parks regulations, traders commit no offence until they start to trade. One benefit that might emerge from tonight's debate is that the House may revisit some of the issues involved. Reframing the powers available to police, and the offences for which prosecutions may be brought, could make the campaign against illegal traders even more effective.
      Mr. Chope: Schedule 1 to the Royal Parks and Gardens Act 1872 makes it an offence to
      drive or wheel into a park any vehicle, barrow, truck, or machine not admitted therein by the rules of the park.
      Does my hon. Friend accept that?
      Mr. Greenway: I do, but my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) said that stepping on the shrubbery or the gardens is also an offence, and I accept that, too. However, my understanding is that that is not classed as a trading offence, so the powers that the Bill gives to the Royal Parks Constabulary would not apply to that particular offence. I believe that that also applies to the point raised by my hon. Friend.
      My hon. Friends have raised important, practical issues. Some of the matters that they have raised go beyond the scope of the Bill, and need to be dealt with on another occasion.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Alan Howarth): I am grateful for the opportunity to respond, in the few minutes that remain for this debate, to a number of matters raised by Conservative Members. Our proceedings on the Bill might have been more extensive if less time had been spent discussing the principle of the guillotine, but the amendments and the new schedule allow me to respond to the concerns raised, in a spirit of practicality, by Conservative Members.
      Amendment No. 6 is exciting, as it would delete two major clauses. However, the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), who tabled the amendment, explained that he drives his coach and horses with an intent to probe, rather than to wreck. The powers of seizure, retention and sale provided in the two clauses that his amendment would knock out are essential. Fines alone, or fines plus the possibility of forfeiture in due course, would not be enough to deter the activity with which we seek to deal.
      I remind right hon. and hon. Members that the powers that we seek are broadly similar—in practical terms, they are identical—to those that Parliament very recently enacted in the City of Westminster Act 1999.
      The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) wanted to know, very reasonably, a little more about the evidence that we have about the size of the problem and the extent of what I termed the rip-off. My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) made a sedentary intervention on this. At his best—he is customarily at his best at this time of night in the Chamber—my hon. Friend's sedentary interventions are worth, I venture to suggest, more than the standing interventions of a great many Opposition Members. He is a close observer of these matters, and he told the House that one is liable to pay around £4 for a hot dog or hamburger. However, the advice that I have from the Royal Parks agency is that the charge could be £7, and that on occasion charges of £12 were sought from innocent tourists. We would all agree that such extortions are not acceptable.
      Last Wednesday, I was asked about the nature of the offences that we will designate as park trading offences.

      819
      Subject to the passage of the Bill and the approval of Parliament, we shall designate regulation 4(6) of the 1997 regulations, which says that no person using a park shall
      carry on any trade or business in a Park, offer anything for sale or hire or expose or have in his possession anything for the purpose of sale or hire therein.
      I hope that that deals with the point.
      It may help hon. Members if I deal with another point that has exercised the House considerably. I refer to the powers that constables will have to deal with perishable food. A number of right hon. and hon. Members debated this matter under something of a misapprehension. Constables will have the power to seize non-perishable items—that is made plain in the Bill. They are likely to ask the person who they consider to be committing a park trading offence if he wishes to take the perishable items away. If the person so invited does not wish to take the goods away but abandons them, they may be removed by the constable to avoid a litter problem in the park. To spread litter in the park is itself an offence under the regulations. Officers of the Royal Parks Constabulary, or, indeed, Metropolitan police officers, should they happen to be in the park, will have the power to deal with perishable items. I am happy to be able to reassure the House on that significant point.
      I was then asked to comment on the possibility that the barrows, having been confiscated, would be allowed back into circulation. It was suggested that the Government would get nothing like their real value, because of deterioration—
      It being four hours after the commencement of proceedings on consideration of the Bill, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER pursuant to Order [this day], put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 6, Noes 227.

      Division No. 205]

      [12.54 am

      AYES

      Gill, Christopher

      Swayne, Desmond

      Hayes, John

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Mr. Eric Forth and

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Mr. David Maclean.

      NOES

      Ainger, Nick

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Austin, John

      Cann, Jamie

      Banks, Tony

      Caplin, Ivor

      Barnes, Harry

      Casale, Roger

      Beard, Nigel

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

      Clapham, Michael

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Berry, Roger

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Betts, Clive

      Blackman, Liz

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Blizzard, Bob

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Clelland, David

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Clwyd, Ann

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Coaker, Vernon

      Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Cohen, Harry

      Browne, Desmond

      Colman, Tony

      Burden, Richard

      Connarty, Michael

      Burgon, Colin

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      820

      Cousins, Jim

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Crausby, David

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Laxton, Bob

      Cummings, John

      Lepper, David

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Levitt, Tom

      Dalyell, Tam

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Darvill, Keith

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Linton, Martin

      Davidson, Ian

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Lock, David

      Dawson, Hilton

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      McCabe, Steve

      Donohoe, Brian H

      McCafferty, Ms Chris

      Doran, Frank

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Drew, David

      Macdonald, Calum

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      McDonnell, John

      Efford, Clive

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Ennis, Jeff

      McIsaac, Shona

      Etherington, Bill

      McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

      Fisher, Mark

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

      Flint, Caroline

      McNulty, Tony

      Flynn, Paul

      MacShane, Denis

      Follett, Barbara

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

      McWalter, Tony

      Fyfe, Maria

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Galloway, George

      Mallaber, Judy

      Gerrard, Neil

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Gidley, Sandra

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Godsiff, Roger

      Martlew, Eric

      Goggins, Paul

      Meale, Alan

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Merron, Gillian

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      Michael, Rt Hon Alun

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Moffatt, Laura

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

      Grogan, John

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      Hain, Peter

      Mountford, Kali

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Olner, Bill

      Hepburn, Stephen

      O'Neill, Martin

      Heppell, John

      Perham, Ms Linda

      Hesford, Stephen

      Pickthall, Colin

      Hill, Keith

      Pike, Peter L

      Hinchliffe, David

      Plaskitt, James

      Hope, Phil

      Pond, Chris

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Pope, Greg

      Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

      Pound, Stephen

      Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Hurst, Alan

      Purchase, Ken

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Illsley, Eric

      Radice, Rt Hon Giles

      Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

      Rammell, Bill

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Rapson, Syd

      Jamieson, David

      Rendel, David

      Jenkins, Brian

      Rowlands, Ted

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      Roy, Frank

      Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

      Ruane, Chris

      Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Salter, Martin

      Sanders, Adrian

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Khabra, Piara S

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Soley, Clive

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      821

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Stevenson, George

      Tipping, Paddy

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Touhig, Don

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Trickett, Jon

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Stringer, Graham

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Stunell, Andrew

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Tynan, Bill

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Wareing, Robert N

      822

      Watts, David

      Woolas, Phil

      Webb, Steve

      Wray, James

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Wilson, Brian

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Winnick, David

      Mr. Jim Dowd and

      Wood, Mike

      Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Bill read the Third time, and passed.

  Television Licences (Disclosure of Information) Bill
  Not amended in the Standing Committee, considered.
  Television Licences (Disclosure of Information) Bill
    New Clause 2

      LIABILITY OF DIRECTORS ETC.
      '.—(1) If an offence under section 3 committed by a body corporate is shown—

      (a) to have been committed with the consent or connivance of an officer, or

      (b) to be attributable to any neglect on his part,

      the officer as well as the body corporate is guilty of the offence and liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.
      (2) If the affairs of a body corporate are managed by its members, subsection (1) applies in relation to the acts and defaults of a member in connection with his functions of management as if he were a director of the body.
      (3) "Officer", in relation to a body corporate, means a director, member of the committee of management, chief executive, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body, or a person purporting to act in any such capacity.'.—[Janet Anderson.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      1.7 am
      The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Janet Anderson): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 14, in clause 3, page 2, line 5, leave out subsection (3).
      No. 15, in page 2, line 29, leave out paragraph (a).
      Janet Anderson: I am pleased that we have finally reached consideration of this Bill. There was a lengthy debate on the guillotine motion, but I hope that, in the short time available to us, we shall be able to cover some of the Bill's substance.
      The new clause and amendments cover three elements: who can commit an offence under the Bill; the nature of the offence; and the penalty for committing the offence. The Government tabled new clause 2 in response to concerns expressed in Committee by the official Opposition. I hope that the House will accept that as an illustration of the consensual approach that most Members have taken towards he Bill.
      Concern was expressed about the current formulation of the offence of unlawful disclosure of personal information supplied to the BBC under clause 3. Some members of the Standing Committee were troubled that, as the offence stands, it would not catch the directors of a company that disclosed such information. Hon. Members—particularly the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) who raised the subject in Committee—will know that the new clause is similar to a clause in the Royal Parks (Trading) Bill that fulfils the same purpose.
      The Committee thought that the deterrent effect would be enhanced if there were a possibility of directors facing personal criminal liability. Therefore, as Conservative
      824
      Members have acknowledged, I undertook to consider the possibility of extending the offence of unlawful disclosure to cover company directors and to introduce a Government new clause on Report. That is what we have done.
      Having considered the matter, the Government concluded that it was right to extend the offence in order to catch directors of companies handling such sensitive information. As I said in Committee, we accept that personal information supplied by the Department of Social Security to the BBC or its contractors under the Bill should be as safe as it is in the hands of the DSS or its contractors. That is one of our main concerns and we are confident that the new clause will achieve our aim. The draft new clause was submitted to the official Opposition before it was tabled, and I understand that the hon. Member for Ryedale agrees with it. Subsection (1) states:
      If an offence…by a body corporate is shown…to have been committed with the consent or connivance of an officer, or…to be attributable to any neglect on his part,
      that person, as well as the company, is guilty of the offence and liable to be prosecuted. The maximum penalty will be imprisonment for up to two years or a fine, or both. In extreme cases, directors could face a prison sentence for an offence committed by their company. A body corporate will include the BBC and its contractors.
      Subsection (2) states:
      If the affairs of a body corporate are managed by its members, subsection (1) applies in relation to the acts and defaults of a member in connection with his functions of management as if he were a director of the body.
      Subsection (3) defines an officer, for the purposes of this clause, as
      a director, member of the committee of management, chief executive, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body, or a person purporting to act in any such capacity.
      The new clause will bring the treatment of company directors in cases of unlawful disclosure of personal information into line with the provisions of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 in relation to DSS contractors. Company directors receiving personal data provided by the DSS in connection with free television licences will not be able to escape their responsibility for ensuring that proper measures are in place to prevent unlawful disclosure of such data. Company directors could not encourage or collude in such disclosure and hide behind the defence that they did not themselves commit the act.
      If company directors negligently failed to provide proper instructions to staff on the need to keep information provided by the DSS secure, or permitted working practices that led to unlawful disclosure of such information, they could find themselves charged with an offence.
      Mr. Douglas Hogg: Clearly, "neglect" applies to a failure to perform duties. To what extent does the Bill impose a duty on a director to monitor the performance of the officials in the company?
      Janet Anderson: The right hon. and learned Gentleman may be interested to hear that a similar point

      825
      was made in Committee. I note that several hon. Members have complained about the short time for which the Bill was in Committee; it is a pity that they did not seek to be members of that Committee.
      I said in a letter to the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mr. Fraser), who is no longer in his place, that to facilitate the provisions the BBC would tighten up its contracts. In response to another point by the hon. Gentleman, I said that we did not
      envisage the contractors incurring hefty legal costs as a result.
      I assure the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) that the Bill's main priority is to facilitate the issue of free television licences to pensioners over 75 on the due date of 1 November, and to make that process as simple as possible. If he will allow me to continue, I hope that I will be able to reassure him on the point that he has raised.
      While providing for limited personal information to be given to the BBC and its contractors to facilitate the administration of free or reduced-fee television licences, the Bill preserves the crucial principle that personal information should be protected from disclosure, including negligent or reckless disclosure. The new clause will strengthen the protection afforded to such information.
      I ask the House to resist amendments Nos. 14 and 15, and I shall explain why.
      1.15 am
      Amendment No. 14 would mean that it was an offence to publish material in the form of a summary or information that had already been lawfully disclosed to the public. The effect of amendment No. 15 would be that the offence of unlawful disclosure could not be tried in a magistrates court.
      Amendment No. 14 is illogical. If information has been made public with lawful authority—for instance, if it has been read out in open court or has been made public with the consent of the person who is the subject of the information—why should a BBC employee, for example, be guilty of an offence if he or she simply repeats information received under clause l that is already in the public domain? Similarly, why should it be an offence to disclose information in the form of a summary for, say, statistical purposes, provided that, as is the case with clause 3(3)(a), individuals cannot be identified?
      Several hon. Members have tabled questions in recent months about the number of people in their constituencies who will benefit from free television licences for the over-75s. I recall one Opposition Member referring to a specific number in his constituency. I do not know where he got the number from. It is difficult for us to calculate the figures. In many cases, we have not been able to answer those questions as openly as we would like because the information requested is not available.
      Mr. Christopher Chope: I am grateful to the Minister. It was I who said that 11,000 people in the Christchurch constituency would benefit. Where did I
      826
      get the information? From none other than the Chancellor of the Exchequer speaking at the Dispatch Box during questions.
      Janet Anderson: I understand that the figures may have been based on a census that took place some years ago. We want to be as accurate as possible. The amendments would make that difficult.
      Mr. Eric Forth: Oh, yes.
      Janet Anderson: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that that is indeed the case. Once the concession is up and running and key statistics can readily be extracted, I am sure that hon. Members would find it unsatisfactory if such information could not be provided because the legislation prevented its disclosure, even in summary form. I am sure that Opposition Members would appreciate the ability to tell how many of their constituents were benefiting from the concession. I hope that they will remind them that it was introduced by a Labour Government.
      Of course, we must ensure that personal information is protected. The Bill aims to preserve that important principle. It protects personal information in the same way as it would be protected under section 123 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992. That section makes it an offence for an employee or former employee of the Department of Social Security to release personal information obtained in the course of his or her employment.
      The Government believe that clause 3 strikes the right balance. It provides a firm sanction against thoughtless disclosure, but provides a defence in cases where the disclosure follows a rational process of consideration of the lawfulness of that disclosure. That was raised in Committee, and I hope that Opposition Members—of those who are present, only the hon. Member for Ryedale, I believe, served on the Committee—will be reassured. We believe that the clause balances individuals' right to have their personal information protected and their right not to be treated as criminals without proper cause.
      On amendment No. 15, clause 3(6) specifies the penalties available in the event of unlawful disclosure of information supplied to the BBC by the DSS. If a person is tried and convicted in a magistrates court, he or she is liable to be imprisoned for up to six months, or to pay a fine of up to £5,000, or both. If convicted in the Crown court, he or she may be imprisoned for up to two years or be liable to an unlimited fine, or both.
      Opposition Members said on Second Reading that some of the penalties were too draconian. However, the official Opposition in Committee said that they had been persuaded that the penalties were necessary and were not draconian, as there was a need to protect the information as much as possible.
      The seriousness of offences under the Bill will vary from malicious to accidental disclosure. The amount of information disclosed may also be relevant. It is therefore appropriate to provide for proceedings in a magistrates court and in the Crown court, depending on the seriousness of the case. Hon. Members will appreciate that not all offences will be sufficiently serious to merit prosecution. However, we must make both modes of trial available, and leave it to the courts to determine the cases

      827
      that can be tried in the magistrates court, if the defendant agrees, and those that are so serious that they must go to the Crown court. I therefore commend new clause 2 to the House and ask the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) not to press amendments Nos. 14 and 15.
      Mr. John Greenway: I thank the Minister for laying a draft statutory instrument before the House on the social security information that would be released to the BBC and its contractors if the Bill was enacted. It makes clear the exact information that must be provided: the name, date of birth, address and national insurance number of everyone over the age of 74. In one sense, that is a narrow definition, but, in another, it highlights the fact that the disclosure of such information would not be countenanced outside Government in any other circumstances.
      On Second Reading, when my hon. Friends last had the opportunity to discuss the matter, we made it clear that we regard such information as sensitive. The legal structure, which the Bill outlines, needs to provide a realistic prospect of the required information remaining confidential. To achieve that, we need a framework of criminal law, for which the Bill tries to provide.
      As the Minister made clear, there was a gap in the Government's original proposal, because it did not appear that the company directors who would be responsible for processing the information to provide free television licences could be caught by the offences under the Bill. I am therefore grateful to the Minister for acknowledging the strength of our argument and giving me the opportunity to consider the wording of new clause 2. It fulfils the requirement that we had in mind.
      If any company wrongfully made use of sensitive information, it would not be right for junior members of staff or for the body corporate to be on the receiving end of any prosecutions. The directors should be responsible. It is crucial for the people at the top of the BBC and the contractors—currently TV Licensing—who will be responsible for implementing the free scheme and for supervising the proper use of information to understand the need to pay the highest regard to confidentiality. They must recognise that any breach of confidentiality will be extremely serious. We can achieve that only by making the directors personally liable for any wrongful use of the information.
      I hope that it is clear from my remarks that we support the new clause—it is what we asked for. It will not only improve the Bill; it will strengthen it in the key respect of responsibility at the very top of the BBC and the contractors for their supervision of the arrangements to enable free licences to be provided. That leads me to the standard of proof or the absolute nature of the offence of wrongful disclosure, which we discussed in Committee, but which, for want of a better expression, still lies on the table, although my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) touched on it in his intervention on the Minister.
      We debated whether a word should be added to clause 3 to make the disclosure wilful, negligent or reckless. The current drafting makes it absolute, which prompts me to ask what would happen if disclosure were accidental because an electronic transfer had reached the wrong destination. The Minister agreed to my suggestion that her
      828
      officials speak with the Data Protection Commissioner. Those matters were discussed in Committee during consideration of the Data Protection Act 1998. The commissioner was concerned that members of her staff should not find themselves on the receiving end of a criminal charge because an accidental transmission had occurred. I hope that that issue is still under consideration and that it might be addressed in the other place.
      Mr. John Hayes: My hon. Friend's point requires amplification. Close scrutiny and tight wording are required as the accidental or negligent loss or transmission of data are hard to define. Having been in the information technology industry for a considerable part of my professional life, I am aware of that difficulty. We must be very careful indeed.
      Mr. Greenway: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's support and I acknowledge his expertise in this area. I suspect that my reading of the Bill—clause 3 creates an absolute offence—may be confirmed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham should he catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am not a lawyer, but I cannot come to the view that there is any requirement on negligence or recklessness or for the disclosure to be wilful, although it is clear from our discussion in Committee that that is what the Government intend. I hope that they will consider the matter of accidental disclosure.
      Janet Anderson: That issue was raised in Committee and we undertook to discuss it with the Data Protection Commissioner's office. I am sorry that we may not be able to debate it in detail, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that it has been discussed. The Data Protection Commissioner is clearly not in a position to determine whether a particular formulation of an offence is appropriate in the context of another piece of legislation—the 1998 Act, which created a general offence to cover all aspects of data protection, has been referred to. As the hon. Gentleman knows, however, the difference is that this Bill deals with a very narrow range of activity.
      The Data Protection Commissioner assured my officials that she supported the inclusion of an appropriate offence aimed at restricting the subsequent use or disclosure of DSS information by BBC staff, if there were also an effective defence on which an innocent individual who made a genuine and isolated mistake could rely. I hope that that will reassure the hon. Gentleman.
      1.30 am
      Mr. Greenway: I am greatly reassured by the intention, but Lam afraid that I shall have to rely on some of the legal brains in the other place to tease the issue out once more. I do not mean to disparage the Minister in any way; I think that, in respect of the offence that we are discussing, she and I are in a pretty similar position.
      I have an inkling that the staff at TV Licensing who might be caught by our creation of an offence that extended more widely than was strictly necessary have not the faintest idea that they are likely to be affected. We have a duty to ensure that those at the top of the organisations that will implement the scheme understand and face their responsibilities, and new clause 2 would

      829
      assist greatly in that respect. However, we also have a duty to ensure that the interests of the staff—clerical and administrative assistants—who would implement it on a day-to-day basis are not unfairly caught by the creation of an offence that would cover an entirely accidental loss of information and its transmission to the wrong destination.
      I hope that what I have said makes it clear that we welcome the new clause. I hope that the House will support it, although I still think that the issue of accidental transmission needs to be addressed.
      Mr. Hogg: Let me begin by declaring an interest, although I am not sure that it is strictly necessary: my wife is a governor of the BBC.
      I am not as enthusiastic as some about the new clause. I think that subsection (1)(a) is perfectly sensible, and I have no objection to it. I am more concerned about subsection (1)(b), because it uses the words "attributable to any neglect" on the part of a director. It will be necessary to define the director's duties before it is possible to determine what the neglect is. Neglect in this context attracts a substantial period of imprisonment—a period not exceeding two years, if the conviction be on indictment.
      I think that we are creating an offence without the directors to whom the penalty attaches being very clear about the nature of their duties. I think it right for a director to be obliged to lay down a system whereby information is safeguarded, but I am not at all clear about the extent to which the Bill requires directors, for example, to monitor the carrying out of the duties, or to perform some overseeing function. We are creating quite a serious penalty without defining what directors must do in the first instance, in respect of which they can be found to have been in neglect. I do not expect the House to resolve the issue sensibly at this hour, but there is a problem that must be addressed in the other place if directors are not to be faced with an unquantifiable liability.
      Mr. Hayes: I am reluctant to appear to differ with my right hon. and learned Friend, but is he saying that, notwithstanding the clear duties placed on directors, the Bill should specify the procedures by which they fulfil those duties? If so, that could apply to all legislation on all subjects, and we would be in an impossible mess.
      Mr. Hogg: The offence is neglect of duty. We must determine what the duty is before we can determine what the neglect is. If we do not spell out the duties in advance, the directors or any other officer cannot tell in advance what they should or should not do to perform their statutory duties. The extent of the duties must be defined. The Bill does not do that. I am not grumbling, because it is late at night, but this question must be addressed.
      Janet Anderson: I said earlier that it is in the interests of a company director, knowing that he may be liable for such an offence, to take proper steps to ensure that his staff follow proper procedures. If a company director negligently failed to provide proper instructions to staff on the need to keep secure information provided by the
      830
      Department of Social Security, or permitted working practices that led to unlawful disclosure of such information, he could be charged with an offence. Surely, the knowledge of that would be sufficient for company directors to put proper practices into place.
      Mr. Hogg: With respect to the hon. Lady, she is not right about that. She has elided the words "neglect" and "negligently": they are different. Neglect is a failure to do that which someone is required to do, and it does not require negligence. She used the word "negligent". If she is saying that "negligence" and "neglect" are the same, so be it, and let us put it in the Bill. Neglect means omission; it does not mean negligent omission. It just means failure—but failure to do what? She really must address this question. I am not blaming her for not doing so this late at night; no one would expect her to do that.
      The problem goes to the nature of directors' responsibilities. I hope that the Minister will reflect on that possible problem, so that her hon. and right hon. Friends can address this matter in the other place.
      Mr. David Maclean: Is not the difficulty for the directors compounded by the fact that clause 3(3), which I hope to address in my amendments, will permit them to release certain information? It is not quite as the Minister says. There is a straightforward obligation on them to keep all information secret, and they should set up systems to guarantee that. They will have to juggle: they will have to keep some information secret, but will be allowed to publish other information, which will make their difficulties infinitely greater.
      Mr. Hogg: My right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) makes a sound point. Although I am against codes of practice, because they are non-statutory and owe their existence to the Executive, if we are to take this general approach of creating an offence of neglect without specifying duties, we will have to introduce a range of non-statutory codes of practice. That will raise problems under the European convention on human rights and the statute that we have passed.
      The House should be cautious about creating statutory offences when the obligations have not been spelled out. That is the point I am making.
      Mr. Robert Maclennan: I want to record my appreciation and that of my right hon. and hon. Friends for the observations of the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) in Committee, and to commend the Government for this display of cross-party co-operation, which seems entirely appropriate in dealing with a measure that commands the support of both sides of the House. Its examination has proved equally uncontroversial.
      I welcome new clause 2. I do not want to cross swords, or indeed to follow very far the arguments of the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), who may have a point that is worthy of consideration in another place, although I am not as troubled by it as he is. Ensuring the liability of the directors for disclosure underlines the importance of the confidentiality of the information that is handled.

      831
      On the formulation that the Government have used, as I understand it, the Minister is following very closely the wording of the Social Security Administration Act 1992. I believe that the Government of which the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham was a member were responsible for introducing that Act. I am not aware that that formulation has given rise to the concerns that he has expressed. It seems that the neglect is plainly the neglect to take the measures that would have been necessary to prevent disclosure from taking place.
      I conclude by saying how grateful we are for the measures that the Government have taken.
      Mr. Maclean: Before we commenced on the group of amendments, I had assumed that the only major point of contention that the other place would wish to look at was that highlighted in new clause 1, which we are not debating in the House tonight. I know that the other place will be greatly vexed about that issue and the fact that people who are currently receiving free television licences may not continue to get them.
      I thought that that was the only point of contention that the other place would want to major on until I heard my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) make his very telling points from a knowledgeable legal position on the difference between neglect and negligent. Having listened to his wise words and tried to grasp the concept behind them, I think that the Government may have been slightly negligent in the drafting of subsection (1)(b).
      If the Government intended that officers who were negligent should be prosecuted and, in fact, have stated that officers who have committed any neglect should be prosecuted—we now know that there is a fundamental legal difference between them—although we have no time tonight to debate the matter because of the ruthless guillotine that the Government have imposed on this little piece of legislation, which we have not had a chance to debate in the Chamber before on Report, the other place will wish to take new clause 2 apart—well, not perhaps take it apart, but slice little bits off it.
      Janet Anderson rose—
      Mr. Denis MacShane rose—
      Mr. Maclean: I give way to the hon. Lady and then I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.
      Janet Anderson: Does the right hon. Gentleman not accept that, if he and his colleagues had not spent so much time on the guillotine motion, we would have had more time to debate the substance of the Bill? I am sure that the over-75s in his constituency will take note of that.
      Mr. Maclean: I reject that entirely. The Government had a three-hour guillotine motion, which was rightfully debated by hon. Members on both sides of the House. The hon. Lady may recall that, in the earlier guillotine motion debate, Members on both sides of the House participated. The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) condemned her own Government for the ruthlessness of the guillotines that have been imposed today, so if the Minister is suggesting that we should have
      832
      more time to debate that aspect of the Bill, the Government's guillotine motion should have given us three, four or five hours—in truth, there should have been no guillotine motion at all on the Bill.
      Mr. MacShane: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Maclean: I will in a moment, but I am responding to the point that the Minister made.
      The Government may have attempted to justify a guillotine motion on the Royal Parks (Trading) Bill, which had been debated, but the Television Licences (Disclosure of Information) Bill has not previously been debated on Report.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman has rebutted the Minister. He should not make a meal of it. He must get on to the new clause.
      Mr. Maclean: I accept your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker; that was the rebuttal. Whenever I see a Government Member down, whether she is a lady or not, I want to continue to put the boot in further.
      1.45 am
      Mr. MacShane: As someone who was prepared to support the right hon. Gentleman's new clause, which has not been selected, I agree with him. However, he and his colleagues—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Amendments that have not been selected have not been selected. We cannot talk about them.
      Mr. Maclean: I am glad that I am not being chastised on this occasion, and I am sorry if I inadvertently led the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) astray, so that he incurred your wrath, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was merely suggesting, by way of introduction to my remarks and my new clause and amendments in this group, that I thought that new clause 2 was reasonably innocuous—although I did not like the terminology of parts of it, which I thought was not as clear as it could be—and that I was not concerned about subsection (1)(b) until I heard my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham in this debate. I am sure that the Government can expect problems in another place with that provision. I have already heard from many noble Friends in another place that they were looking forward to the Bill, to debate their own amendment—essentially new clause 1, which we are not discussing.
      Mr. MacShane: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Could you give me some guidance on how the right hon. Gentleman can incessantly discuss his new clause, which has not been selected, when I am not allowed to do so? Could we have some guidance from you on that matter?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I do not like having to rise to my feet all the time to keep hon. Members in order. Nevertheless, the hon. Gentleman is quite right. That was the last time that the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) will mention new clause 1.

      833
      It should not take me to remind the House that that new clause has not been selected—we all know that. Perhaps that will satisfy the hon. Gentleman.
      Mr. Maclean: Precisely, Mr. Deputy Speaker; I had mentioned it for the last time and then passed on to say—as I think that Hansard will record—that I shall now turn to my amendments Nos. 14 and 15. It was not until the hon. Member for Rotherham made his point of order that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, were forced to mention those words and that number, which I shall not mention.
      Amendment No. 14 suggests leaving out subsection (3). I want to do that specifically because, for the first time, we shall be giving away secret information to a private company. Information that is controlled by the Government and the Department of Social Security will be issued. Each year, thousands of names and related private social security information will be issued to a private company, and potentially to dozens of other private companies that are acting on behalf of the BBC.
      If the Government decide to issue information in that way and not as I have suggested in my proposed alternative, I think that it is incumbent on them to say that there are no circumstances in which that organisation will be able to publish any of the information at all. If we are to breach the precedent of not issuing Government information to private companies, and then breach it a bit further by saying, "You can't publish—except summary information", or, "You can disclose information that might already have been disclosed", we shall be creating ever more breaches in the absolute rule of secrecy.
      There is no absolute necessity for the BBC or other organisations to publish summary information. If the BBC has information, it can feed it back to the Department of Social Security, which will make the decision on publication. The Department of Social Security should already have the information. It will know how many names it has issued to the BBC, and how many people aged 74 it has told the BBC will be entitled to a licence. The Department will have all that information. If it wanted the information organised on a constituency basis, it might have to establish its own systems.
      How would the BBC have that information on a constituency basis? If the Department of Social Security does not know the number of pensioners aged 74 or over in individual constituencies, it will merely pass name, address and national insurance number to the BBC, and apparently the BBC will make that information available in summary form—presumably by using a parliamentary address cross-checker and a parliamentary constituency reference book. That information, which was given to the BBC specifically for the purpose of granting a free television licence, will be turned into a pack of other—no doubt useful and interesting—summary information revealing more general details about our constituents and the breakdown by age in all the constituencies in the United Kingdom.
      Mr. Paterson: Will my right hon. Friend give us the benefit of his experience in the Home Office and tell us whether he thinks that the provisions are workable as drafted?
      Mr. Maclean: I think that there is a dangerous precedent in the subsections that I want to delete.
      Mr. Hayes: Could not the problem that my right hon. Friend has described be dealt with by developing the non-statutory codes of conduct that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) suggested? That would make it possible for the conduct that he describes to be controlled at least in some way, albeit voluntarily.
      Mr. Maclean: I am happy for there to be voluntary codes of practice setting out the duty of the directors, the officers and the chief executive. Presumably, some of the terminology in the new clause is designed to catch BBC governors and director-generals. They must be the "other similar officers", just as the wee secretary involved in selling dodgy hamburgers was caught by the previous Bill. However, I do not want voluntary codes of practice to be used to keep secret our information that we have given to the Department of Social Security. Why should my constituents aged 74 and over have to depend on a voluntary code of practice to ensure that summary information about them is not published by BBC companies or the BBC itself?
      We know that the summary information will be used to put extra leverage on the Government at a time when they might decide not to increase the licence fee or to restrict the concession or claw it back. If there was a little bit in the press in a couple of years saying that the Government were finding the concession too great, too onerous or too costly, within months, information issued by the BBC under commercial acolytes collecting the fee would point out how many thousand desperate pensioners there were in each constituency. If Parliament wanted to vote for such a measure, we would be blackmailed into not doing so by the weight of the numbers argument. I am not saying that the Government would be blackmailing us—the BBC and others would be blackmailing Parliament and the Government.
      There is no need to issue summary information. I appeal to the Minister to keep it all secret and thereby ensure that people have confidence in the system that the Government are trying to set up.
      Janet Anderson: The Government have brought forward the Bill in good faith, because we believe that it is the easiest and simplest way of ensuring that pensioners get the free licences to which they are entitled. Given their antics, we can only assume that the Conservatives are intent on scuppering the scheme.
      Mr. Maclean: If we wanted to scupper the Bill, we could have done so ages ago. The Minister is endangering her legislation by adding a new clause—
      It being five hours after the commencement of proceedings on the allocation of time motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to Order [this day], put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
      Bill read the Third time, and passed.

  Serbia and Iraq (Sanctions)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]
  1.55 am
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: I wish to concentrate on Iraq, because my hon. Friends the Members for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) and for Chatham and Aylesford (Mr. Shaw) and I were able to have 35 minutes of the Prime Minister's time a couple of weeks ago, with his PPS and his Foreign Office secretary, and he kindly said that he would consider some of our proposals.
  My first question is: the United Nations has been reporting since August 1999 on the stock situation in Iraq involving food and medical supplies, and these monthly reports show a satisfactory distribution picture. Why are Her Majesty's Government continuing to identify a picture of hoarding of these humanitarian supplies? That is my first question.
  My second question is that the President of the Security Council in January 1999 reminded the Security Council that there should be monitoring of the impact of sanctions on the human condition of those countries under sanctions, and also that the chairpersons of sanctions committees should visit their respective countries to obtain first-hand information on the ground. Why does that not happen in the case of Iraq, and what are the Government planning to do about it?
  The third question is that there is no sign of an end to the stalemate between the UN Security Council and the Government of Iraq with regard to resolution 1284. This stalemate is entirely at the expense of the civilian population. Keeping that fact in mind, what do the Government propose as an initiator of the resolution to end the stalemate?
  The fourth question is that the educated public in Iraq refer with increasing frequency to the suffering of the Iraqi people under sanctions, and to evidence of violations of human rights and international law. How do the Government answer that observation?
  My fifth question is that it is by now well known that the smuggling of oil occurs across all of Iraq's borders. It is also known that large amounts of the income from illegally exported oil are used by the Iraqi regime for expenditure on items of no value to the deprived Iraqi population, including the building of palaces. What do the Government propose be done about this? Why are ships carrying illegal oil intercepted in the Gulf, while large fleets of trucks—I am told at least 200 a day—carrying illegal oil from northern Iraq into Turkey are left unhindered?
  In September of last year, I went to Baghdad for the second time—I had been there first in 1994—with the former Taoiseach, Albert Reynolds, who is not a naive man. We were appalled by the degradation of human beings. This country is perhaps the oldest part of civilisation. It is not all a question of the manipulation of propaganda; there is real human tragedy. It is also true that the Iraqi people are proud, and that they will therefore never allow the inspectors to return, given what has happened.
  836
  One helpful action would be to ease student travel and allow the new generation of Iraqis to see something of the outside world from which they have been cut off. Secondly, financial responsibility should be returned to the Iraqi Government. Thirdly, Iraq should be allowed to become a member of OPEC again—a belief held very strongly by Hans von Sponeck, the German diplomat who resigned his post as UN co-ordinator on a matter of principle.
  Fourthly, reconstruction and an early overhaul of the Iraqi oil industry should be allowed. Oil experts around the world, and especially the Japanese, are amazed that the industry there should function at all, given the sanctions regime. Finally, water supplies must be monitored. In high summer, the great Tigris and Euphrates rivers have been reduced to little more than sewers.
  Confidence-building measures should be taken, where possible. Do rogue countries exist, or just rogue regimes? Behind the statistics stand real people. The UN co-ordinators, Dennis Halliday and Hans von Sponeck, went to Iraq as objective people. They say that 167 children die every day, on average. We must remember the fathers and mothers of those children.
  The problems in Iraq have been going on for something like 10 years. Where is the conscience of the world? We cannot believe blindly that economic sanctions will deliver solutions, because they have not done so. If Ministers could see what I and Albert Reynolds saw, their consciences would not allow them to sleep at night.
  Risks must be taken for peace. Nothing is solved by sanctions. We are concerned about the degradation of human beings.
  This debate is also about Kosovo, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and Serbia. I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax was going to speak in the debate, but I can tell the Minister that we are worried about depleted uranium. I hope that the Foreign Office will reflect on an article by Felicity Arbuthnot that appeared in the Sunday Herald in Scotland. It stated:
  The United Nations has issued an internal warning to all its officials in Kosovo that the water supply in the former warzone may be so contaminated by radioactive deposits of depleted uranium from Nato airstrikes that it is no longer fit to drink.
  Depleted uranium, used in military shells, has been linked to Gulf war syndrome and the spiralling levels of cancer and birth deformities.
  That is a real problem. A seven-page United Nations report has come into my hands. It was issued to UN personnel at the UN headquarters in Pristina, and it marks out the worst-affected areas of depleted uranium concentrations in that country. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews), who went to Serbia in March, knows how much concern there is in the hospitals about the issue.
  I conclude with one thought: the imposition of sanctions, which is the subject of the debate, far from weakening the position of those who are in charge of Governments, such as Mr. Milosevic or Saddam Hussein, actually strengthens them. Sanctions mean black market revenues, and who do those black market revenues go to?
  Mr. Robert Marshall-Andrews: I would like my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) to reflect on a simple issue that is political,

  837
  not economic. He and I have been to hospitals in Belgrade. As a first-world country, Serbia had a success rate of 35 per cent. in dealing with almost all cancers. It has now been reduced to 15 per cent. People are dying in hospitals, entirely unnecessarily. The anger that is felt by professional—not necessarily political—people at what is being done to their patients in those hospitals is politically entirely contrary to what we wish to deliver. Those people, who are opinion formers in Serbian society, are now all anti-Milosevic, but they are silenced by what we are doing.
  I know that my hon. Friend will reflect on this. Moreover, no one in the House has a more honourable tradition of fighting against regimes of this kind than the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), particularly when it comes to sanctions. He must know that the distinction in this case is that we are encouraging the regime by imposing sanctions. As I must ask a question in this intervention, will my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow reflect on that?
  Mr. Dalyell: My reflection is that the sanctions imposed against both Serbia and Iraq are totally different from those in relation to South Africa. The conditions in South Africa were entirely different, for the sanctions were asked for by a substantial majority of the population. I have met no one in Iraq or Serbia who thinks that sanctions are in any way helpful. Indeed, they bolster rather than weaken regimes.
  It is late at night. This is a time for reflection. It is also a time of happiness for children in this country. We ought to think about the consequences of our actions for the children of Serbia and Iraq.
  2.8 am
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Peter Hain): May I first apologise for arriving a little late and for missing the opening sentences of the address of my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell)?
  Mr. Dalyell: My hon. Friend was not late.
  Mr. Hain: I thank my hon. Friend for that. I am grateful to him for allowing us another opportunity to discuss Iraq. Along with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews), I respect my hon. Friend's long-standing interest in Iraq, and his genuine concern for the suffering of the Iraqi people. We both want to see more done to help them.
  My hon. Friend raised a number of thoughtful and interesting points, some of which I will reply to this evening. Those which I do not have the opportunity to address directly I will reply to in detail in correspondence, and will place a copy in the Library.
  When we last debated the situation in Iraq on 24 March, I commended to the House the provisions of United Nations Security Council resolution 1284. After months of intensive effort, Britain secured adoption of that ground-breaking new resolution in December last year. It establishes a new platform for the UN's dealings with Iraq. It deals comprehensively with a range of issues,
  838
  notably the humanitarian situation, disarmament, and Kuwaiti issues, including stolen property and missing civilians. It represents the collective will of the Security Council and has the force of international law.
  Since I last debated this matter with my hon. Friend, excellent progress has been made on implementing the provisions of resolution 1284. I can update the House with the progress on humanitarian provisions, every one of which is unconditional. The resolution removed the ceiling on the amount of oil that Iraq is allowed to export to fund the purchase of a wide range of humanitarian goods under the oil for food programme.
  Iraq's oil reserves are second only to those of Saudi Arabia. Those factors, together with the recent recovery in world oil prices, have boosted Iraq's oil exports back to, if not above, the peak historic level of around $15 billion a year. Iraq's oil Ministers recently announced that the country plans to increase exports further by about 700,000 barrels a day. That would put Iraq among the world's top five oil exporters. Furthermore, the Security Council has doubled the allocation from oil for food for the purchase of oil spare parts, to $600 million.
  All that means that an estimated $10 billion will be available for the humanitarian programme in Iraq this year. The funding is available now, and it is unconditional. Food, medical supplies and other equipment can be delivered straight to the Iraqi people. With that huge amount of revenue available, one cannot help but ask why we still see pictures—my hon. Friend has experienced the reality—of malnourished and sick Iraqi children. Those pictures rightly provoke our anger, sympathy and compassion.
  There is no need for those children to want or to suffer. Why do they? It is an outrage that the Iraqi Government wilfully deny food and medicine to children and play politics with their suffering. The Government hope that by doing so, they will play on our sympathies and emotions so that we shall abandon Security Council resolutions and lift sanctions, leaving Iraq free to develop its weapons of mass destruction and reconstitute the threat to the region that it has posed time and again.
  We see no pictures of starving children from northern Iraq. My hon. Friend must address that point. The same sanctions apply there, but Saddam's writ does not run. In northern Iraq, the United Nations, not the Iraqi authorities, is implementing the oil for food programme. It is doing so in a manner designed to bring maximum benefit to the Iraqi people. As a result, the programme is making vast improvements to people's lives. New homes and hospitals are being built, minefields cleared and food and medicine delivered. All that could happen in the centre and south of Iraq if only the Government in Baghdad would allow it.
  The truth is that Saddam Hussein has no interest in putting his people's needs first. He chooses to reject offers of humanitarian assistance from other countries, additional to the oil for food programme, including assistance specifically targeted to meet children's needs. Yet he is encouraging journalists and campaigners to come to Baghdad and to tour the children's wards in its hospitals. It is a scandal that the doctors cannot get the drugs that they need, but the fault lies with the Iraqi Government. They failed to order enough medicines under the UN programme, then they failed to deliver them, despite the huge resources available.

  839
  Saddam Hussein makes much more money by selling oil illegally. None of it is spent on food or medicine. It is spent instead on luxury items for those closest to Saddam whose loyalty he wishes to retain. It is spent on building new palaces and theme parks, and on holding spectacular celebrations for Saddam Hussein's birthday. By our estimate—my hon. Friend referred to this—illegal exports of Iraqi oil outside the UN programme reached $250 million last year, and $170 million so far this year. We and other members of the Security Council are making serious and successful efforts to limit that trade. It deprives the United Nations humanitarian programme of revenue and it lines the pockets of Saddam Hussein's regime at the expense of the Iraqi people. We thus remain committed to the multinational interdiction force in the Gulf and continue to discuss with regional states how best to crack down on the illegal trade.
  We welcome Iran's recent action against several vessels containing smuggled Iraqi oil. We are also pressing Turkey for action—an issue that my hon. Friend rightly raised.
  I discussed the disarmament provisions of Security Council resolution 1284 with Hans Blix, the executive chairman of the new arms inspection body—UNMOVIC—when I was in New York in April. I was extremely impressed by his ability and by his highly professional approach to the challenging job before him. In accordance with the resolution, he has drawn up an organisational plan for UNMOVIC. I am pleased to report that, on 13 April, the Security Council unanimously approved that plan. Dr. Blix is now concentrating on recruiting and training his staff. When that is complete, I trust that those—like my hon. Friend—who have contacts with Baghdad will urge Iraq to take the genuine opportunity that is on offer for a fresh start with a wholly new disarmament body, and for co-operation with Dr. Blix and his staff.
  Recently, I met Yuli Vorontsov—appointed by the Secretary-General to be his co-ordinator on Kuwaiti issues. Like us, Vorontsov remains extremely concerned that Iraq is not co-operating with the tripartite commission process—the process chaired by the International Committee of the Red Cross, designed to account for the whereabouts of the 605 Kuwaitis and others missing since the end of the Gulf war. I urge Iraq to put an end to the suffering of the families of those who have been missing for so many years. They deserve to know what has happened to their relatives.
  My hon. Friend urges us to lift sanctions immediately and unconditionally, because of the serious humanitarian situation in Iraq. Under Security Council resolutions, sanctions can be lifted only when Iraq has complied with its disarmament obligations and following a review by the Security Council of Iraq's policies and practices—including its implementation of all relevant resolutions.
  In March last year, a UN panel of disarmament experts confirmed the analysis of UNSCOM—the United Nations Special Commission—that serious questions remain unanswered. My hon. Friend would surely not suggest that Britain—a permanent member of the Security Council—should decide to abandon the council's resolutions, which have the force of international law. Does he really believe that, if sanctions were lifted now, Saddam Hussein would suddenly change the habit of a lifetime and start putting his people's needs first?
  840
  The answer lies with resolution 1284, which clearly maps out the way to the lifting of sanctions and, for the first time, provides for the suspension of sanctions, if Iraq complies with a standard well short of that required for sanctions lift. The Iraqi Government are fond of claiming that they have given up their weapons of mass destruction and that they have nothing to hide. If that is so, then they have everything to gain by resuming full co-operation with the UN.
  On Serbia, my hon. Friend raised several issues to do with depleted uranium. There are genuine matters for concern that we have addressed. I shall look afresh at the points he made, if he wants me to do so, to consider whether we can investigate and respond to them. Again, I shall place a copy of my letter in the Library.
  The European Union and its international partners are working on the basis of a dual strategy: one that combines the deliberate political isolation of the Milosevic regime with a determined effort to engage with Serbian civil society in all its forms. With increased activity recently by Commissioner Chris Patten and by High Representative Javier Solana, the EU is placing even greater emphasis on its relations with the Serbian democratic opposition and the Montenegrin Government, and on support for independent media, non-governmental organisations and civil society in general.
  The Serbian Government's actions last week—including the mass arrests of student activists, the takeover of the only independent television station in Belgrade, further repression of other independent media and police violence against the citizens of Belgrade—show why Milosevic must remain an international pariah. We shall continue and strengthen our efforts to support the embattled independent media and the journalists who are risking so much to preserve a basic human right—that of freedom of expression.
  My hon. Friend will know of the EU's energy for democracy programme. That was designed to help a certain number of local authorities in Serbia which, because they are controlled by democratic political forces opposed to Milosevic, were suffering particular discrimination in the provision by central Government of fuel for heating. Despite Milosevic's initial attempts to block the free imports of heating oil, the European Union has prevailed. The pilot programme has now been extended to other Serbian towns.
  Mr. Dalyell: Before 10 o'clock, I spent the evening with a visiting Inter-Parliamentary Union delegation from Bulgaria. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister visited Bulgaria during the conflict and there was close co-operation with NATO. Even the Bulgarians now favour a policy of lifting sanctions. Would it not be wise at least to talk to them while they are in London about their reflections, hard hit as they are by what has happened on the Danube?
  Mr. Hain: I appreciate the points that my hon. Friend makes. Certainly, we are very happy to continue discussing with the Bulgarians their points of concern.
  We continue to believe that a policy of isolating the Governments of Serbia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia—FRY—and making use of a range of

  841
  targeted sanctions must be the key element in our strategy. In addition to the UN arms embargo, which has been in force since 1998, Britain implements the following EU sanctions: a visa ban on Milosevic and his cronies that covers about 800 named individuals; a ban on new investment which does not affect existing EU investments; a freeze on the assets of the FRY and Serbian Governments that extends to individuals and companies deemed to be associated with the regime, and a prohibition on making funds available to the targets of the asset freeze; a ban on the sale or supply of petroleum and petroleum products; and a ban on the sale or supply of equipment that might be used for international repression or terrorism. There are also UK national export controls on dual-use goods and on televisual equipment that is destined for the state media. The EU flight ban is currently suspended.
  The sanctions regime bears no resemblance to the comprehensive international sanctions regime that was imposed on the FRY from 1992 until shortly after the signing of the Dayton agreement in 1995. I should make it clear that it does not include a comprehensive trade embargo.
  The implementation of the financial sanctions regime is being revised to make clearer which Yugoslav companies are deemed to be owned or controlled by the FRY and Serbian Governments. There will be a "white list" of those companies in Serbia that are not deemed to be under such control or ownership. We will do our utmost to ensure that no companies are persecuted because of their presence on the new EU white list. However, it should be remembered that many companies in Serbia that do not align themselves with the ruling parties already suffer discrimination and harassment.
  842
  We have made a number of moves since the Kosovo conflict to reduce the impact of sanctions on ordinary citizens. Most recently, we have suspended the flight ban on Serbia for six months. We are keeping sanctions under review, and will adjust the regime as appropriate. However, we must avoid giving Milosevic easy propaganda victories by the early or unwarranted loosening of sanctions, particularly in a period of increased repression in Serbia.
  Mr. Marshall-Andrews: Economic sanctions are an extraordinarily crude weapon. They cannot be targeted in the way that my hon. Friend suggests. The oncology hospital that we visited in Belgrade had only the desire to obtain medicines to treat cancer. Its doctors have to take bags of deutschmarks across the border into Germany to buy those medicines. Will my hon. Friend reflect on that point for a moment?
  Mr. Hain: I shall happily reflect on that point, but I ask my hon. and learned Friend to reflect on the consequences of simply lifting sanctions in the way he invites us to do. That would effectively allow Milosevic a free rein, and that is the problem with the sincere and heartfelt points that my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway made about Iraq and Serbia. They have not come up with a serious alternative strategy.
  Although we and our European partners have taken care to minimise the unintended impact of sanctions, we cannot always compensate for Milosevic's wilful disregard of his own people's welfare. For example, the difficulties associated with health care provision in Serbia—
  The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at twenty-four minutes past Two o'clock.

CABINET OFFICE

  Information Technology
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office when the report on the handling of major Government IT projects will be published. [123285]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  We are publishing the report "Successful IT: Modernising Government In Action" today, and have placed copies in the Libraries of the House.

  This Government are committed to delivering improvements and avoiding the mistakes of the past. The report makes a series of recommendations to put in place the pillars that support successful IT projects. They include measures to:
  Make sure all projects have a single person who is responsible for delivery and for making sure new IT is seen as part of a wider process of business change.
  Improve skills particularly in project management.
  Reduce risks by using modular and incremental approaches to projects.
  Put in place systems for monitoring the progress of projects and learning lessons from experience.
  Establish peer reviews of high risk projects.

  The Government will implement all the recommendations and the report sets out a plan for achieving this. The E-Envoy will own the report and inform me of progress towards putting the recommendations into practice.

  Medals
  Mr. Healey
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office (1) if she will(a) place in the Library and (b) publish the papers prepared for the Committee for Honours, Medals and Decorations in its consideration of the case for the award of the General Service Medal for service in Northern Ireland between 14 August 1969 and a date to be agreed; [122550]

  (2) if she will (a) place in the Library and (b) publish the papers prepared for the Committee for Honours, Medals and Decorations in its consideration of the case for the award of the General Service Medal for service in Kuwait between 8 March 1991 and 30 September 1991; [122538]

  (3) if she will (a) place in the Library and (b) publish the papers prepared for the Committee for Honours, Medals and Decorations in its consideration of the case for the award of the General Service Medal for military service in Air Operations Iraq between 16 July 1991 and a date to be agreed; [122542]
  314W
  (4) if she will publish the minutes of the meeting of the Committee for Honours, Medals and Decorations at which it agreed the case for the award of a clasp to the General Service Medal for military service in Lebanon between 7 February 1983 and 9 March 1984; [122543]

  (5) if she will (a) place in the Library and (b) publish the papers prepared for the Committee for Honours, Medals and Decorations in its consideration of the case for the award of the General Service Medal for service in Kuwait between 8 March 1991 and 30 September 1991; [122546]

  (6) if she will (a) place in the Library and (b) publish the papers prepared for the Committee for Honours, Medals and Decorations in its consideration of the case for the award of the General Service Medal for service in the Gulf between 17 November 1986 and 31 October 1998 and for continuing mine counter measures operations within the Gulf between 1 November 1998 and 28 February 1999; [122547]

  (7) if she will (a) place in the Library and (b) publish the papers prepared for the Committee for Honours, Medals and Decorations in its consideration of the case for the award of the Clasp Dhofar for service between 1 October 1969 and 30 September 1976; [122552]

  (8) if she will publish the minutes of the meeting of the Committee for Honours, Medals and Decorations at which it agreed the case for the award of a clasp to the General Service Medal for military service in the Gulf of Suez between 15 August 1984 and 15 October 1984; [122545]

  (9) if she will publish the minutes of the meeting of the Committee for Honours, Medals and Decorations at which it agreed the case for the award of a clasp to the General Service Medal for military service in Northern Ireland between 14 August 1969 and a date to be agreed; [122549]

  (10) if she will publish the minutes of the meeting of the Committee for Honours, Medals and Decorations at which it agreed the award of a clasp to the General Service Medal for military service in Kuwait between 8 March 1991 and 30 September 1991; [122537]

  (11) if she will publish the minutes of the meeting of the Committee for Honours, Medals and Decorations at which it agreed the case for the award of a clasp to the General Service Medal for military service in Air Operations Iraq between 16 July 1991 and a date to be agreed; [122541]

  (12) if she will publish the minutes of the meeting of the Committee for Honours, Medals and Decorations at which it agreed the case for the award of a clasp to the General Service Medal for military service in the Gulf between 17 November 1986 and 31 October 1988 and for continuing mine counter measures operations within the Gulf between 1 November 1998 and 28 February 1999; [122548]
  315W
  (13) if she will (a) place in the Library and (b) publish the papers prepared for the Committee for Honours, Medals and Decorations in its consideration of the case for the award of the General Service Medal for service in Northern Iraq and Southern Turkey between 6 April 1991 and 17 July 1991; [122540]

  (14) if she will (a) place in the Library and (b) publish the papers prepared for the Committee for Honours, Medals and Decorations in its consideration of the case for the award of the General Service Medal for service in Lebanon between 7 February 1983 and 9 March 1984; [122544]

  (15) if she will publish the minutes of the meeting of the Committee for Honours, Medals and Decorations at which it agreed the case for the award of a Clasp Dhofar for military service between 1 October 1969 and 30 September 1976; [122551]

  (16) if she will publish the minutes of the meeting of the Committee for Honours, Medals and Decorations at which it agreed the case for the award of a clasp to the General Service Medal for military service in Northern Iraq and Southern Turkey between 6 April 1991 and 17 July 1991. [122539]

  Dr. Moonie
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Committee on the Grant of Honours, Decorations and Medals is a committee established at the request of The Sovereign that reports directly to The Queen. I have therefore asked the Chairman of the Committee, Sir Richard Wilson, to write to my hon. Friend. A copy of the letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

PRIME MINISTER

  Ministerial Meetings
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Prime Minister what requests he has received from overseas Governments for meetings in Britain between himself and representatives of these Governments between 19 May and 12 June; and which such meetings will take place. [122792]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 19 May 2000]: It is established practice under exemption 1(c) of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information not to disclose information received in confidence from foreign Governments. As with previous Administrations, it is not our practice to provide information on calls until they are announced officially, both here and in the visitor's home country.

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the official visits to Britain by senior representatives of overseas Governments which are due to take place between 19 May and 12 June. [122793]
  316W
  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 19 May 2000]: The Foreign and Commonwealth Office is organising the following official visits to Britain by senior representatives of overseas governments which are due to take place between 19 May and 12 June:

  President of Italy (31 May–1 June)

  President of the Philippines (1–5 June)

  State Secretary for Water, Hungary (29 May–2 June)

  Minister for Higher Education, Uzbekistan (5–8 June)

  Minister of Defence, Tanzania (1–3 June)

  Minister of the State Environmental Protection Administration, China (20–25 May)

  Vice Minister of Construction, China (22–28 May)

  Minister of the State Administration for Radio, Film and Television, China (28 May–1 June)

  Minister of Labour and Social Security, China (28 May–1 June)

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Zambia
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of progress in the establishment of community schools in Zambia. [121778]

  Clare Short
  Community schools in Zambia provide an important service for disadvantaged children. They have grown rapidly, from 53 in 1996 to 373 last year. My officials are working with the Ministry of Education and other donor partners to ensure that their needs are reflected in a joint education sector support programme.

  EC Programmes
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, pursuant to the Annual report of the Department for International Development, Cm 4610, para 4.22, relating to the part of DFID's budget spent through EC programmes, what procedures were used in accounting for this money by her Department. [121837]

  Clare Short
  The UK contribution to the European Union Budget, including development spending, is paid from the Consolidated Fund to an EC account held in the UK. These payments are administered by the Treasury.

  For our European Development Fund (EDF) payments, which are made quarterly, my Department is notified by the EDF of the required amount shortly before payment is required. It is made to DFID's euro account at the Bank of England. When the EDF need to call down these funds, they notify my Department, which writes to the Bank of England authorising transfer to the EDF account.

  Audit of all EC expenditure, including development programmes, is carried out by the Court of Auditors. I have access to their report, which is also scrutinised by the National Audit Office.

  Rwanda
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what her Department's priorities are in Rwanda for the financial year 2000–01. [122691]
  317W
  Clare Short
  Last week I made my third visit to Rwanda and saw for myself the progress being made by the Government and the people to overcome the legacy of genocide. I also saw evidence of the severe challenges which Rwanda must overcome if the Government's objectives for poverty elimination, peace and reconciliation are to be achieved. My Department's main priority in Rwanda for 2000–01 is to work with Government in a collaborative effort to meet these challenges.

  We will support Government's own efforts to develop the poverty reduction strategies needed to secure HIPC debt relief. We will provide flexible recurrent budget support to facilitate increased social sector spending, particularly on education and will expand our capacity building support to help Government strengthen its social sector planning and delivery mechanisms. We will be supporting Government's efforts to improve skills at all levels and will be helping Government take full advantage of new opportunities in the field of information and communications technology.

  We plan to hold development talks with Government later this year to discuss the detail of future UK support and to develop further the positive dialogue already established on a range of economic, social and political challenges facing Government.

  India (Dalit Community)
  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assistance is provided by her Department for the Dalit community in India. [120299]

  Clare Short
  The Indian constitution provides dalits (scheduled castes) with a range of guarantees of equality and affirmative action. Yet, while policies and a wide range of government schemes exist to provide them with services, patchy implementation and discriminatory social attitudes continue to retard progress. DFID is working with government to improve services and to demonstrate and replicate systems to promote access for scheduled castes and other marginalised groups.

  For example, DFID supports the District Primary Education Programme (DPEP), which is designed to increase access to quality primary education for all, with special measures to reach scheduled castes and other marginalised groups such as scheduled tribes.

  We also support efforts to empower individuals and groups from scheduled castes and other marginalised communities. DFID's Poorest Areas Civil Society Programme aims to support civil society initiatives which empower poor people in the poorest districts to realise their rights. Scheduled castes will be a major target group for this programme which will support initiatives in five areas: self-governance; women's empowerment; policy advocacy; social cohesion; and self help to meet basic needs.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Opinion Research
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Solicitor-General how much his Department spent on opinion research in the financial year 1999–2000. [123251]

  The Solicitor-General
  Nothing was spent on opinion research, by which is understood opinion research for marketing purposes, in the financial year 1999–2000.

  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Solicitor-General if he will list opinion research projects undertaken on behalf of his Department in the financial year 1999–2000 itemising(a) focus group research, (b) quantitative surveys and (c) other market research surveys and in each case stating when and where the results were published. [123252]

  The Solicitor-General
  No opinion research projects were undertaken by my Department during the financial year 1999–2000.

DEFENCE

  Naval Vessels
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the planned service life of(a) HMS London, (b) HMS Beaver, (c) HMS Boxer and (d) HMS Brave; and what was the forecast date for withdrawal from Royal Navy service, prior to the decision in the Strategic Defence Review to dispose of them. [121704]

  Mr. Spellar
  The planned service for each ship was 18 years. The additional information is given in the table.

  Ship

  Pre-SDR date for withdrawal

  HMS London

  28 February 2005

  HMS Beaver

  31 December 2002

  HMS Boxer

  31 January 2002

  HMS Brave

  29 February 2004

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what have been the running costs of each of the Royal Navy's Type 42 destroyers for each of the past five years. [121706]

  Mr. Spellar
  The running costs of each of the Royal Naval's Type 42 destroyers for each of the past five years are contained in the following table. This includes repair and maintenance, manpower, fuel and other costs such as port and harbour dues. Year-on-year variations are largely attributable to refit periods.

  £ million

  Ship

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  HMS Birmingham

  32.28

  16.92

  17.38

  13.38

  10.39

  HMS Cardiff

  19.86

  41.2

  28.86

  13.20

  17.87

  HMS Newcastle

  32.60

  31.60

  18.57

  13.90

  13.73

  HMS Glasgow

  14.70

  29.47

  26.36

  13.61

  12.65

  HMS Exeter

  19.46

  15.72

  40.83

  12.76

  14.48

  HMS Southampton

  16.53

  20.37

  17.91

  39.09

  18.79

  HMS Nottingham

  18.70

  17.24

  19.08

  13.08

  32.74

  HMS Liverpool

  16.92

  20.75

  14.59

  14.79

  14.63

  319W

  £ million

  Ship

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  HMS Manchester

  17.99

  19.40

  14.58

  12.22

  12.69

  HMS Gloucester

  19.33

  19.40

  13.89

  21.49

  15.77

  HMS Edinburgh

  35.27

  19.29

  22.50

  13.00

  12.28

  HMS York

  20.48

  19.79

  17.50

  11.78

  21.88

  DERA
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence under what terms and conditions staff from the DERA workforce will be transferred to a new organisation after the split of DERA; if the conditions of service for those who remain will stay the same; and if he will make a statement. [122380]

  Mr. Hoon
  Staff transferring to the NewDERA organisation would have their terms and conditions protected under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) (TUPE) regulations. This means that staff transferring to the private NewDERA organisation would transfer with their existing terms and conditions. The Cabinet Office "Statement of Practice on Staff Transfers in the Public Sector" covers the conditions of service for staff remaining in the Ministry of Defence. The principle is that these staff should be treated no less favourably than if TUPE regulations had been applied to them. These matters are part of the consultation process on DERA PPP which is currently underway and which is scheduled to be completed on 9 June 2000.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will list the name, size and location of DERA-owned sites within the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement; [122378]

  (2) what plans there are to sell part of the land held by the DERA estate before the part sell-off of DERA; and if he will make a statement. [122386]

  Mr. Hoon
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from John Chisholm to Mr. Mike Hancock, dated 22 May 2000:
  I am replying to your parliamentary questions about the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) estate as responsibility for operational matters such as these fall to me as the Chief Executive of the agency.
  I attach at annex a list showing the name, size and location of DERA owned sites within the United Kingdom. These sites where the freehold of either all or part of the land has been vested to DERA. You ask what plans there are to sell part of this land before the privatisation of the agency. As you know, the future of DERA is currently the subject of a consultation document. MOD's proposals envisage that around three quarters of DERA would be turned into a company (for planning purposes this is referred to as NewDERA) which would be floated on the stockmarket as soon as its potential is judged to be suitably developed. This could be during 2001, though the precise timing has yet to be determined and will be influenced by the results of the consultation process.
  In parallel to this process, as part of our normal strategic planning, the estate, as you would expect, is kept under continuous review. This process is expected to continue regardless of any privatisation considerations. As the precise transaction point for NewDERA has yet to be decided, I cannot say whether any currently planned land sales would take place before or after any flotation. We have, however, been planning to sell off the Chertsey and Bromley
  320W
  (Aquila) sites since 1997; these announcements were first made public in the 1998 Strategic Defence Review. The timing of these disposals will depend on progress with respect to the relocation of our staff and our negotiations with the local authorities. In addition, two smaller sites (West Drayton and Farnborough Queen's site) are to be closed in May and September, respectively, of this year. Whilst they are likely to be sold, no firm dates have been fixed for this disposal. Thus, the total number of sites that potentially could be sold prior to any proposed flotation of DERA is four.
  I hope the above explains the situation.

  List of DERA owned sites

  Name

  Size1

  Location

  Cody Site

  150

  Farnborough, Hants

  Queen's Gate Site

  2

  Farnborough, Hants

  Engine Test Facilities

  230

  Pyestock, Hants

  Communication Station

  75

  Cobbet Hill, Guildford, Surrey

  Boscombe Down Airfield

  585

  Boscombe Down, Salisbury, Wiltshire

  Chemical and Biological Defence (CBD)

  2,620

  Porton Down, Salisbury, Wiltshire

  DERA Fort Halstead

  135

  Sevenoaks, Kent

  DERA Chertsey

  120

  Chertsey, Surrey

  The Maultway

  100

  Bagshot, Surrey

  Aquila

  10

  Bromley, Kent

  DERA Bedford

  70

  Clapham, Bedford

  Christchurch2

  3

  Christchurch, Dorset

  DERA Portsdown

  13

  Portsdown, Hants

  DERA Bincleaves

  3

  Weymouth, Dorset

  DERA Fraser

  1

  Eastney, Portsmouth, Hants

  DERA Funtington

  16

  Chichester, West Sussex

  DERA Haslar2

  30

  Gosport, Hants

  DERA West Drayton

  2

  West Drayton, Middx

  DERA Malvern

  30

  Malvern, Worcs

  Angle

  20

  Pembrokeshire

  Hutton Moor

  6

  North Somerset

  DERA Aberporth

  170

  Aberport Ceredigion

  DERA Pershore

  130

  Pershore, Worcs

  Applecross

  2

  Highland

  Kyle of Lochalsh

  2

  Highland

  Loch Fyne

  1

  Argyll and Bute

  Loch Goil

  3

  Argyll

  Clyde Barons Point

  1

  Argyll and Bute

  Clyde Rosneath

  3

  Rosneath

  Drunmore Harbour pier

  0.3

  Dumfries and Galloway

  DERA Eskmeals2

  1,600

  Cumbria

  DERA Pendine

  2,240

  Carmarthenshire

  Portpatrick

  0.1

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Portland Bill

  10

  Weymouth

  Portland Grove Point

  0.1

  Weymouth

  Rona Ranges

  60

  Kyle of Lochalsh, Ross-shire

  DERA Shoeburyness

  17,270

  Southend-on-Sea, Essex

  Potton Island

  400

  Essex

  Foulness Island

  70

  Essex

  West Freugh

  1,850

  Dumfries and Galloway

  DERA Hurn

  260

  East Dorset

  Llanbedr

  465

  Llanbedr, Gwynedd

  1 Approximate hectares

  2 These sites are a mixture of freehold and leased land

  Note:

  Sizes are approximate and have been rounded

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what assessment he has made of the extent to which the part-privatisation of DERA will lead to(a) compulsory and (b) voluntary redundancies; and if he will make a statement; [122978]

  (2) what arrangements have been put in place to meet the costs of possible redundancies at DERA following the part-privatisation. [122979]
  321W
  Mr. Hoon
  It has never been an objective of the Public Private Partnership for DERA to reduce staff numbers and indeed the opportunities provided by this process to develop new markets for DERA's products should have a positive effect on job prospects.

  Staff numbers within DERA have varied in response to customer requirements and changes in the funding available for defence research. There has been such rebalancing in DERA over the last seven to eight years. This process is independent of PPP and would be expected to continue. As a general rule we would seek to avoid compulsory redundancies wherever possible. However, this would be subject to the need to ensure that the organisation can continue to meet the requirements placed by the Ministry of Defence and other customers.

  Aircraft Carriers
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the latest position in respect of the two new aircraft carriers planned for the Royal Navy; what is his assessment of the costs of the programme; if the programme is up to date; and if he will make a statement. [122975]

  Mr. Hoon
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friends the Members for Ilford, North (Ms Perham) and for Plymouth, Sutton (Mrs. Gilroy) on 17 April 2000,Official Report, columns 678–80.

  Gulf Veterans
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made on the Gulf Veterans Medical Assessment Programme; and if he will make a statement. [122928]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Gulf Veterans Medical Assessment Programme (GVMAP) was established in 1993 to provide as full a diagnosis as possible to UK veterans of the 1990–91 Gulf conflict who are concerned about their health. The GVMAP continues to see new patients and to date 2,991 veterans have been seen. GVMAP offer patients an appointment within four to six weeks of referral.

  A management audit of the GVMAP was undertaken by King's Fund Health Quality Service in late 1998. This was concerned with all aspects of patient care and the service provided. The auditors were impressed with the organisation of the GVMAP and the enthusiasm and commitment of the staff to the provision of a high quality service. However, the auditors made a number of specific recommendations for improving the service. In January the Gulf Veterans Illnesses Unit published a report detailing the progress made by GVMAP in implementing the auditors' recommendations. The Royal College of Pathologists are in the process of reporting on the clinical procedures used at the GVMAP.

  A paper describing the clinical findings from the first 1,000 patients examined at the GVMAP was published in the British Medical Journal in January 1999. A follow-up paper on the next 1,000 patients will be submitted for publication shortly.
  322W
  In its continuing support of research into Gulf veterans illnesses, the GVMAP is providing anonymised medical data relating to UK Gulf veterans, for a study by King's College, London on war syndromes in British and American veterans of wars from 1900.

  Joint NBC Regiment
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is(a) the cost of and (b) the handover date for the new buildings at HQ Joint NBC Regiment at Winterbourne Gunner. [123117]

  Mr. Spellar
  The new buildings at Winterbourne Gunner are to house the Defence NBC Centre. The approximate cost of these is £7 million and the handover date will be 12 June.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consultations he held with(a) the county councils and (b) the district councils concerned before deciding to locate the Joint NBC Regiment at RAF Honington. [123115]

  Mr. Spellar
  The appropriate local authorities for the areas concerned were informed at the end of March 1999 that a study was under way to determine the best long term location for the Joint NBC Regiment. We did not receive any representations from the local authorities following these letters. Had we done so, we would of course have given them due consideration. The appropriate local authorities are also being informed following my recent announcement.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what new buildings will be constructed at RAF Honington, at what cost and over what time scale, to accommodate the Joint NBC Regiment; and if will make a statement. [123118]

  Mr. Spellar
  It is likely that a new office block, training complex and hangar works will be required. Additional single living accommodation will also need to be built. The estimated maximum cost of these works is £9 million.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the Joint NBC Regiment based at RAF Honington train at(a) DERA-CBD Porton Down, (b) Salisbury Plain Training Area and (c) elsewhere; and if he will make a statement. [123121]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Joint NBC Regiment trains at Porton Down, Salisbury Plain and elsewhere, for example, on Stanford Training Area, close to RAF Honington.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if(a) secure voice communications and (b) secure information technology networks are in place between RAF Honington and Defence NBC Centre at Winterbourne Gunner. [123120]

  Mr. Spellar
  Yes.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to release the Farringdon House Territorial Army Centre in North Cheam for use as accommodation for asylum seekers. [122840]
  323W
  Mr. Spellar
  There are no plans for Farringdon Territorial Army Centre (TAC) in North Cheam to be used as accommodation for asylum seekers.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Electricity Industry
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many job losses have been announced in the past 12 months in the electricity generating and distributing industry; and what is his estimate of the impact on jobs in(a) the industry and (b) the Electricity Association that will arise as adjustments are made following changes brought about by the Utilities Bill and the new electricity trading arrangements. [122488]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 16 May 2000]: No central figures are available on the number of job losses announced in the electricity industry over the past 12 months, nor is it possible to attribute any changes in the levels of employment which may occur in the future to either the Utilities Bill or the new electricity trading arrangements.

  Oil and Gas
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the oil fabrication yards in the UK which have access to(a) Objective 1 European funding, (b) Objective 2 European funding, (c) Objective 3 European Funding, (d) special programme funding and (e) assisted area status. [122834]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 19 May 2000]: All of the main UK oil fabrication yards are in areas where European Structural Funds are available in the programming period beginning this year. The Objectives these areas qualify under are listed:
  Harland and Wolff, Belfast is in the Northern Ireland special PEACE programme area.
  Lewis Offshore, Stornoway and Barmac at Nigg and Ardersier are in the Highlands and Islands special transitional Objective 1 area.
  Consafe Burntisland, Fife is in a transitional Objective 2 area.
  UIE, Clydebank and Greenock, Kvaerner Methil, Fife, Aker McNulty, South Shields, AMEC, Wallsend, Heerema, Hartlepool, Kvaerner, Teesside, Odebrecht, Teesside and SLP, Lowestoft are all in Objective 2 areas.

  The new assisted areas are currently under discussion with the European Commission.

  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what were the employment levels in each of the UK's oil fabrication yards broken down by individual site in May(a) 1998, (b) 1999 and (c) 2000. [122833]
  324W
  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 19 May 2000]: The employment level at each of the UK's fabrication yards is set out in the table.

  Fabrication yard

  May 1998

  May 1999

  May 2000

  Aker McNulty Ltd.—Tyne & Wear

  4,589

  503

  316

  Amec Process & Engineering Ltd.—Tyne & Wear

  818

  1,478

  87

  Barmac—Nigg & Ardersier

  3,379

  4,255

  2,954

  Consafe—Fife

  802

  236

  104

  Hereema—Hartlepool

  253

  364

  102

  Kvaerner Oil & Gas—Fife

  278

  485

  805

  Kvaerner Oil & Gas—Teeside1

  800

  1,700

  0

  Lewis Offshore—Stornoway2

  314

  136

  14

  Odebrecht-SLP Engineering—Teeside

  267

  168

  148

  SLP 2000—Lowestoft

  537

  244

  216

  UiE Clydebank—Glasgow

  3,150

  1,100

  50

  1 Now closed

  2 In receivership

  Entrepreneurs
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what research his Department has undertaken into discrepancies between the numbers of(a) white entrepreneurs and (b) ethnic minority entrepreneurs obtaining business loans and other forms of financial assistance. [123085]

  Ms Hewitt
  The experiences of ethnic minority businesses in the UK in raising finance are extremely varied and the nature of the problems they face are very complex. This is why the DTI, together with the Bank of England and the British Bankers Association is supporting an extensive new study into the finance needs of ethnic minority businesses.

  The study, which began in January, will survey 1,000 business owners from five ethnic groups in London, Birmingham, Leicester and Strathclyde over a two year period. It will address issues of perceived and actual discrimination.

  This high quality research over an extended time scale will provide the banks and the DTI with a solid foundation upon which to help all ethnic minority business to succeed.

  Sellafield
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received in the past year from(a) citizens and (b) representatives of other EU member states concerning operations of the Sellafield nuclear plant. [121819]

  Mrs. Liddell
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has received representations from(a) three citizens and (b) four representatives, ie those holding an elected or Ministerial post, of other EU member states concerning operations at Sellafield in the past year.

  Employment Tribunals
  Ms Julie Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answers of 13 April 2000,Official Report, columns 273–76W and 8 May 2000, Official Report, column 282W, concerning

  325W
  employment tribunal claims, if he will provide the requested data (a) for Scotland and (b) separately for each employment tribunal region in England and Wales. [123124]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  Some of the information is not available in the format requested. As the available information is contained in a number of detailed tables, I have asked the Chief Executive of the Employment Tribunals Service to write to my hon. Friend and place a copy in the Library of the House.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Road Accidents (A40)
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many accidents there have been on the A40 over the last three years(a) in total and (b) between Witney and Oxford. [121817]

  Mr. Hill
  The following numbers of inquiry road accidents occurred on the total length of the A40 in the last three years for which national records are available: 1,303 in 1996, 1,374 in 1997 and 1,290 in 1998. On the single carriageway section of the A40, between the Wolvercote roundabout in Oxford and the eastern end of the Witney bypass at Hill Farm, there were 27 in 1996, 45 in 1997 and 27 in 1998.

  Wolverhampton/Shrewsbury/Chester Railway
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make it his policy to support a bid to give the Wolverhampton/Shrewsbury/Chester railway line a priority Trans-European Network status. [122739]

  Mr. Hill
  The Commission, in discussion with member states, is currently reviewing the need for revisions to the TEN guidelines which were adopted in 1996. We agree with the emerging conclusions that no major alterations should be made to the guideline maps at this stage other than those necessary to ensure consistency with the transport network maps that have been developed for the countries seeking accession to the EU. There is also a consensus that no changes to the list of 14 Priority TEN projects adopted by the European Council at Essen in December 1994 should be made at this time. There will be another review of the guidelines in 2005 and that might be the appropriate moment to look afresh at the guideline maps and the list of priority projects.

  Subject to parliamentary approval of the Transport Bill, future proposals for TEN status of railway lines in Great Britain will become the responsibility of the Strategic Rail Authority.

  Euro
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions which(a) local authorities and (b) other organisations for which his Department has budgetary responsibility (i) have set up and (ii) are setting up projects to prepare for the UK adopting the euro; what these projects are costing each
  326W
  organisation; what the total cost to the Department is; and from which budget sums already spent have come. [122811]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  An update on changeover planning in the public sector was given in the second Outline National Changeover Plan published on 9 March.

  Airports Policy
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he plans to publish the Government's policy on airports; and if he will make a statement. [123156]

  Mr. Mullin
  We intend to produce an Air Transport White Paper which will provide a framework for the future of aviation and airports in the UK.

  The White Paper will not be produced until after we have taken a decision on the planning application for Terminal 5 at Heathrow. The planning inquiry concluded in March 1999 and the Inspector indicated that he expects to submit his report to the Secretary of State within two years. The Secretary of State will then need to consider the report and the Inspector's recommendations carefully before making decisions.

  The White Paper will also be preceded by a wide-ranging consultation document on aviation and airports; and by public consultations on the findings of the studies the Department is undertaking on air services and airports in all parts of the UK.

  London Transport Policy
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions he has had with the Mayor of London about Government transport policy in London. [123155]

  Mr. Hill
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport and I met the Mayor on 16 May. We had a wide-ranging discussion of issues of mutual interest including transport. I look forward to following this up with a further meeting with the Mayor later this week.

  Local Authorities (Executive Structure)
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the local authorities in England and Wales which have instituted changes to their executive structure since May 1997; and what new arrangements they have put in place. [123146]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  We do not hold centrally any comprehensive listing of those councils which are changing their constitutions within the restrictions of current legislative framework. Until the Local Government Bill [Lords], currently before the House, is enacted, councils cannot adopt executive arrangements within the terms of the Bill.

  Ministerial Visit (Washington D.C.)
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what was the(a) itinerary for, (b) purpose of and (c) cost of his recent visit to Washington D.C. [123135]
  327W
  Mr. Prescott
  I visited Washington on 25–27 April in order to give a speech on climate change at the Pew Centre. I also met vice-president Al Gore, Environment Secretary Frank Loy, Transport Secretary Rodney Slater, several Senators, Dutch Environment Minister Jan Pronk and Australian Environment Minister Robert Hill. On 27 April I travelled from Washington to New York for a meeting of the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development where I also met Jan Szysko the Polish Chair of the Climate Change Convention and Dr. Hassan Adamu the Nigerian Environment Minister and current chair of the G77 group of developing countries. I returned to the UK overnight on 27–28 April. All travel was in accordance with the Ministerial Code and my costs for the trip were approximately £6,000.

  Groundwater Regulations
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the disparity between groundwater regulation charges in England and Scotland. [123018]

  Mr. Mullin
  In England and Wales, where the Environment Agency is responsible for authorisations under the Groundwater Regulation 1998 a single charge, equivalent to the initial £85 application charge payable at the inception of the scheme, will cover the first four-year period of groundwater authorisation. In Scotland, where the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency is the competent authority, charges under the Groundwater Regulations are a matter for the devolved Administration.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Millennium Dome
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many discounted tickets have been issued to visitors to the Millennium dome each week since 1 January. [121949]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 12 May 2000]: Of the total number of tickets issued to date (10 May 2000), Group discount tickets account for 36 per cent. of the total. Further discounted tickets, relating to children, senior citizens and students account for 9.3 per cent. of the total tickets sold to date. The Millennium dome, like any other major visitor attraction, has an extensive ticket pricing structure incorporating a variety of attractive discounts for groups and individuals.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what estimate he has made of the number of overseas visitors to the dome during the year from(a) EU countries, (b) the USA and (c) the rest of the world. [121951]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 12 May 2000]: On the basis of a recent exit poll conducted at the dome, approximately 10 per cent. of visitors were from overseas. On the basis of information collected from call centres and web sales, these visitors have come from the following countries: European Union—73 per cent., Europe (non EU)—3 per cent., North America—19 per cent. and rest of the world—5 per cent. Of the EU countries, NMEC estimates that the top sellers are Benelux, France, Scandinavia, Germany and Ireland.
  328W
  There are certain to be additional overseas visitors who buy tickets direct from the dome upon arrival. NMEC does not at present ask these visitors their country of origin.

  Green Transport
  Mr. Moore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list the key buildings for which his Department(a) submitted and (b) did not submit green transport plans by March. [122606]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 18 May 2000]: The Department for Culture, Media and Sport submitted a green transport plan (or more properly transport plan) for all its key buildings in June 1999. The buildings, all in London, are: 2–4 Cockspur Street; Grove House; 7 St. James' Square; Oceanic House; 179a Tottenham Court Road: Also included were Haymarket House and Novello House, but these have since been vacated by DCMS. The Royal Parks Agency did not submit a formal transport plan, but have published measures for promoting green transport initiatives in their Green Housekeeping Policy.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Schuman Declaration
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the(a) publications and (b) events funded by the European Union to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Schuman declaration. [121512]

  Mr. Vaz
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the office of the European Commission in London.

  "Your Britain, Your Europe"
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs for what reason the "Your Britain, Your Europe" campaign includes visits to schools; and what legal advice he took prior to such visits taking place. [121500]

  Mr. Vaz
  I have visited several schools during the cross-party "Your Britain, Your Europe" campaign to exchange views with students about Europe and to meet staff and pupils involved in European projects. We saw no need to take legal advice prior to such visits.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the parliamentary constituencies to be visited in the future by the "Your Britain, Your Europe" roadshow. [123092]

  Mr. Vaz
  We have not yet finalised the itinerary for all my various forthcoming city visits. But I will invite MPs and MEPs of all parties to participate in events which take place within their constituencies.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what definition of the term eurosceptic was used by the Minister for Europe in speeches made during the "Your Britain, Your Europe" roadshow. [123094]
  329W
  Mr. Vaz
  In various speeches, I have employed the term "eurosceptic" as the widely used description for certain sections of the media, NGOs and political parties which are opposed to the UK engaging constructively with EU partners or making a positive contribution to EU discussions.

  Overseas Defence Sales
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many people his Department employs(a) in the United Kingdom and (b) abroad to facilitate overseas defence sales. [122247]

  Mr. Hain
  [holding answer 16 May 2000]: Government support for defence equipment exports is co-ordinated by the Defence Export Services Organisation of the Ministry of Defence. Overseas, this work is normally carried out by Defence Attaches and Defence Sales Sections. Although FCO staff contribute towards this work in a number of ways there are no staff directly employed to facilitate overseas Defence Sales.

  The role of FCO departments in London is to provide advice to the Department of Trade and Industry on applications for export licences for defence equipment sales overseas.

  Open Government
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many applications for information he received under the Open Government: Code of Practice on Access to Government Information in the last parliamentary Session; and how many were granted. [121856]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 18 May 2000]: I refer my right hon. Friend to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on 18 May 2000, Official Report, columns 216–17W.

  Green Transport
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the key buildings for which his Department(a) submitted and (b) did not submit green transport plans by March. [122563]

  Mr. Hain
  [holding answer 18 May 2000]: The FCO submitted green transport plans for all key buildings in the UK including Old Admiralty Building, Old Public Offices and Hanslope Park.

  Europe Day
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the cost of hosting the Europe Day Open Day at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on 9 May. [123088]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Open Day on 9 May, "Europe Day", was the first of a series of 12 open days the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is holding between May and July this year as part of the London String of Pearls Millennium Festival. The costs of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's participation 330W
  in the Festival will be spread over the 12 open days and it is therefore not possible to calculate the cost of individual open days.

  The Diplomatic Missions in London of almost all the EU member states and all the applicants participated in the event and met their own costs.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the non-parliamentarians invited to participate in Europe Day events; for what reason they were invited; and if he will make a statement. [123089]

  Mr. Vaz
  We invited several celebrities to join Europe Day events, including Tony Robinson and Frank Bruno. We also invited several MEPs drawn from each of the main parties to join our celebration of Europe's cultural diversity.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the(a) nature and (b) substance of the European Debate which took place during the Europe Day Open Day at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on 9 May. [123091]

  Mr. Vaz
  The schools debate held at the FCO's "Europe Day" was a parliamentary-style debate. Six students, each from a different school, spoke for or against the motion: "This House believes there will never be a United States of Europe".

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what criteria were used in the selection of schools invited to participate in the Europe Day Open Day at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on 9 May. [123090]

  Mr. Vaz
  In deciding which schools to invite to our Open Europe Day at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office we took a number of practical considerations into account, such as ease of travel and distance from the FCO. On that basis we contacted all secondary schools in Greater London and the Home Counties.

  Serbia and Iraq
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his policy on holding seminars for hon. Members; and if he will hold policy seminars on(a) Serbia and (b) Iraq. [123066]

  Mr. Vaz
  We are happy to hold policy seminars for hon. Members where there is clearly a strong wish on the part of sufficient Members that we should do so. If my right hon. Friend would care to write to me with details of what he proposes we will give it due consideration.

  I and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and my hon. Friend the Minister of State frequently debate Iraq and Serbia in this House. My hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) also has regular contacts with bodies with an interest in Iraq, including the UN, NGOs, members of the Iraqi opposition and religious bodies. As Minister for Europe, I am in regular contact with similar organisations with an interest in Serbia.

  Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a
  331W
  statement on the outcome of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference held at the United Nations in New York. [122839]

  Mr. Hain
  We are delighted with the very positive outcome. It reaffirms the importance of the NPT as the cornerstone of global non-proliferation and disarmament efforts.

  The key elements from the final document are:
  (a) The nuclear-weapon States have given "an unequivocal undertaking…to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals leading to nuclear disarmament to which all States parties are committed under Article VI."
  (b) The nuclear-weapon States will take the following steps "leading to nuclear disarmament in a way that promotes international stability, and based on the principle of undiminished security for all:
  Further efforts by the nuclear-weapon States to reduce their nuclear arsenals unilaterally.
  Increased transparency by the nuclear-weapon States with regard to their nuclear weapons capabilities and the implementation of agreements pursuant to Article VI and as a voluntary confidence-building measure to support further progress on nuclear disarmament.
  The further reduction of non-strategic nuclear weapons, based on unilateral initiatives and as an integral part of the nuclear arms reduction and disarmament process.
  Concrete agreed measures to further reduce the operational status of nuclear weapon systems.
  A diminishing role for nuclear weapons in security policies to minimize the risk that these weapons ever be used and to facilitate the process of their total elimination.
  The engagement as soon as appropriate of all the nuclear-weapon States in the process leading to the total elimination of their nuclear weapons."

  The UK delegation played an active and pivotal role throughout the Conference. We worked hard to bridge the gaps between the Nuclear Weapon States and influential Non-Nuclear Weapon States, in particular those belonging to the New Agenda Coalition. Our constructive role has been widely recognised and welcomed. We have clearly demonstrated our commitment to further international progress on non-proliferation and disarmament.

  Many people feared that this Conference would not be able to reach agreement, but the constructive attitude all sides have shown has demonstrated the continuing importance the international community attaches to non-proliferation and disarmament.

  We now look forward to translating this agreement into concrete international progress.

  I will arrange for the final documents from the Review Conference to be put in the Library of the House when they are available.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Listening Device (Police Investigation)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the result of the police investigation of a listening device found in the vicinity of St. Jarlath's Church, near Blackwater, County Armagh. [118979]

  Mr. Ingram
  It is not Government policy to comment on claims of this nature.

  RUC Crest
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the Guidelines on Health and Safety regarding the dimensions of the Royal Ulster Constabulary crest displayed on police vehicles came into force; when they were to be implemented; and by which Government Department these guidelines were prepared. [121256]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 23 March 2000,Official Report, column 628W.

  There are no specific Health and Safety guidelines on the dimensions of the Royal Ulster Constabulary crest on police vehicles.

  Powdered Milk Tokens
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many powdered milk tokens were provided by the Western Health and Social Services Board in the last 12 months for which figures are available and(a) what was their face value in (i) Limavady Council District, (ii) Londonderry Council District and (iii) Strabane Council District and (b) how many (i) chemists and (ii) other outlets provided this service in each of the council districts; and what checks he has carried out to determine whether only those chemists authorised to do so have returned such tokens for payment by the Board. [121254]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The Foyle HSS Trust and Sperrin Lakeland HSS Trust within the Western Health and Social Services Board area accepted 109,821 powdered milk tokens in the 12 month period 1 January 1999 to 31 December 1999, which are the latest figures available.
  (a) Powdered milk tokens are reimbursed at the same face value in the Limavady Council District, Londonderry Council District and Strabane Council Districts by Foyle HSS Trust and Sperrin Lakeland Trust. The face values reimbursed at December 1999 were as follows:

  £

  SMA White & Gold

  5.99

  Cow and Gate Plus and Premium

  5.69

  Farleys 1 & 2

  5.61

  Milupa Milumil

  5.87

  Milupa Aptamil & Aptamil Extra

  6.58

  (b) (i) The number of chemists authorised to accept milk tokens in each Council District are as follows:

  District

  Limavady Council District

  4

  Londonderry Council District

  26

  Strabane Council District

  14

  (ii) No other outlets within these Council Districts are authorised to accept powdered milk tokens.
  Foyle HSS Trust and Sperrin Lakeland HSS Trust accept powdered milk tokens only from those chemists authorised to participate in the NI Welfare Foods Scheme.

  Criminal Justice Review
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he will implement the conclusions of the Criminal Justice Review; and if he will make a statement. [120701]

  Mr. Ingram
  On 30 March the Secretary of State announced that there would be a six-month consultation on the recommendations contained in the report of the Review of the Criminal Justice system in Northern Ireland. An announcement of the Government's decisions on implementation, and a detailed timetable, will be made as soon as possible after the consultation period has ended.

  Punishment Beatings
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many punishment beatings have been reported to the RUC in each month since April 1997. [121838]

  Mr. Ingram
  The following tables show the recorded number of paramilitary style assaults and shootings by calendar year from January 1997.

  Casualties as a result of paramilitary style assaults 1997–2000 Monthly Breakdown

  Month

  1997

  1998

  1999

  20001

  Loy

  Rep

  Loy

  Rep

  Loy

  Rep

  Loy

  Rep

  January

  7

  12

  5

  3

  1

  12

  9

  1

  February

  12

  14

  7

  8

  13

  5

  4

  3

  March

  7

  11

  6

  3

  11

  2

  8

  4

  April

  5

  6

  6

  1

  3

  4

  3

  7

  May

  7

  4

  8

  3

  7

  1

  2

  2

  June

  2

  1

  8

  11

  8

  6

  —

  —

  July

  8

  5

  7

  7

  2

  6

  —

  —

  August

  4

  4

  12

  2

  10

  1

  —

  —

  September

  5

  7

  9

  2

  4

  2

  —

  —

  October

  6

  4

  8

  4

  7

  4

  —

  —

  November

  8

  7

  6

  5

  2

  1

  —

  —

  December

  7

  3

  7

  6

  6

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  78

  78

  89

  55

  90

  44

  26

  17

  11 January–9 May

  Casualties as a result of paramilitary style shootings 1997–2000 Monthly Breakdown

  Month

  1997

  1998

  1999

  20001

  Loy

  Rep

  Loy

  Rep

  Loy

  Rep

  Loy

  Rep

  January

  8

  1

  5

  7

  6

  5

  3

  —

  February

  3

  —

  —

  4

  6

  1

  4

  —

  March

  8

  —

  1

  4

  —

  4

  11

  6

  April

  4

  1

  3

  4

  2

  2

  6

  9

  May

  2

  1

  4

  1

  4

  4

  6

  4

  June

  6

  2

  4

  9

  5

  5

  —

  —

  July

  2

  11

  4

  1

  5

  —

  —

  —

  August

  5

  1

  4

  1

  8

  3

  —

  —

  September

  3

  1

  2

  —

  4

  —

  —

  —

  October

  1

  1

  —

  1

  —

  2

  —

  —

  November

  2

  2

  4

  3

  5

  —

  —

  —

  December

  2

  5

  3

  3

  2

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  46

  26

  34

  38

  47

  26

  30

  19

  11 January–9 May

  Biodiversity
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what estimate he has made of the cost of 334W
  implementing the Draft Northern Ireland Biodiversity Strategy; how the Government intend to fund the delivery of the strategy; and if he will make a statement. [122098]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The Draft Northern Ireland Biodiversity Strategy was published for consultation in June 1999 by the Government's advisory body, the Northern Ireland Biodiversity Group.

  No final conclusions on the Strategy, including costs, can be reached until the Group has presented its recommendations to Government.

  I understand that the Group expects to be able to do so within the next few months.

  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what percentage of the 1994–1999 round of Structural Funds for Northern Ireland was spent on nature conservation projects; what type of projects were funded; and if he will make a statement. [122096]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Environment & 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. Lembit Öpik, dated 17 May 2000:
  As Acting Chief Executive of the Environment & Heritage Service, I am responsible for operational aspects of protection of the natural heritage on behalf of the Department of Environment for Northern Ireland. I am responding to the Parliamentary Question you put down on 11 May 2000 about what percentage of the 1994–1999 round of Structural Funds for Northern Ireland was spent on nature conservation projects and what type of projects were funded.
  The amount spent on nature conservation projects from the Structural Funds for Northern Ireland for the 1994–1999 round was £171,000. This represented 0.018% of the total Funds. The schemes involved were environmental enhancement works at Whitespots, Newtownards, Tyrella Beach near Newcastle, the ECOS Centre, Ballymena and Waterfoot Beach on the east Antrim Coast.
  I trust you will find this helpful.

  RUC Barracks (West Belfast)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what use is being made of the RUC barracks building in West Belfast; what options are being considered as future uses for the building; and what plans he has to consult local residents about its use. [121869]

  Mr. Ingram
  At present all police buildings in West Belfast are being used operationally and will continue to be used in this capacity for the foreseeable future. There are no plans at the moment to consult with local residents regarding the future use of these buildings.

  Public Representatives will be consulted over any future plans for policing in West Belfast.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Departmental Vehicles
  Mr. Pearson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many(a) cars and (b) commercial vehicles operated by his Department were manufactured (i) in the UK, (ii) in the EU and (iii) elsewhere. [122261]
  335W
  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 17 May 2000]: The DfEE, including the Employment Service, operates 543 cars and 22 commercial vehicles. All vehicles are manufactured in the EU. No record is kept of which EU country the vehicle is manufactured in. The Department occasionally uses cars provided by the Government Car and Despatch Agency (GCDA). These are not included in the above figures. For information on cars provided by the GCDA, I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given on 17 May 2000, Official Report, column 141W, by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Cabinet Office.

  Higher Education (Ethnic Minorities)
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to ensure members of ethnic minority groups are not discriminated against in entry to universities. [122787]

  Mr. Wicks
  We are taking a range of measures to widen participation in Higher Education. The Higher Education Funding Council for England provides £18 million to Higher Education institutions through a 5 per cent. premium for students from disadvantaged areas. In his speech of 10 May 2000 to the AUT Conference, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced a further £4 million for this fund and set out a series of steps which we will be taking to put in place a coherent package of support in order to widen participation. We hope to make further announcements in the autumn. Many of the ethnic communities who need help most will benefit from these measures.

  We are also tackling the under-representation of ethnic minorities among teaching staff in Higher Education. In his letter of 23 November 1999 to the Funding Council, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State expressed his deep concern about the present position on equal opportunities for HE staff. He also stated that all institutions are expected to have acted upon the National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education recommendations to have equal opportunities policies in place, that barriers to recruitment and progression should be removed and that institutions should be fully accountable for the implementation of these changes.

  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the study by the Higher Education Funding Council on the likelihood of graduates from ethnic minority groups finding employment. [122788]

  Mr. Wicks
  I am aware that the Higher Education Funding Council for England's preliminary work for the development of performance indicators confirms our own understanding that graduates from ethnic minorities are less likely to be in employment than white graduates with similar qualifications. This is not acceptable. The Government are actively committed to equal opportunity in employment and to tackling racial discrimination in the workplace.

  Graduates (Employment)
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what performance indicators he will use to measure the employment of graduates. [122789]
  336W
  Mr. Wicks
  I will consider a range of measures of employment outcomes for graduates. I will pay particular attention to the institutional-level performance measure being developed, on the advice of a working group chaired by the Higher Education Funding Council for England, which relates to full-time home students with a first degree who have newly entered the job market. The measure will be based on the percentage of these students who are unemployed at 3 January of the academic year following their graduation.

  Ms Pamela Relf
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the contribution which Ms Pamela Relf made to teaching in state schools. [122939]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 19 May 2000]: We learned with great regret of the death of Pamela Relf, who had been teaching for 36 years, and we extend our condolences to her family and colleagues.

  Foundation Stage (Curriculum Guidance)
  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment for what reason the Curriculum Guidance for the Foundation Stage launched by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State the hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge), on Thursday 11 May, accompanied by a Departmental Press Notice, was not available in the Library on Tuesday 15 May; when he expects a copy to be deposited; and to whom the guidance has so far been made available. [R] [122953]

  Ms Hodge
  [holding answer 19 May 2000]: I announced on 11 May the publication of the "Curriculum Guidance for the Foundation Stage". This product, which addresses the early education of children, was produced jointly by my Department and the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority. It is intended primarily for early years practitioners and has been distributed widely to around 35,000 early years settings in the private, voluntary and maintained sectors. It has also been distributed to all other key stakeholders, including: Early Years Development and Childcare Partnerships (EYDCPs) and local education authorities; teacher training and NVQ training organisations; other Government Departments including the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland Offices; and a range of early years and teacher associations and early years professionals. The delay in making the guidance available to hon. Members in the House of Commons was a result of an administrative oversight, which was remedied as soon as it was brought to my attention. Copies of the guidance were placed in the Library two days later on 17 May.

  Sure Start
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if, for the second wave of the Sure Start programme, he will list(a) the areas selected, (b) the basis upon which each of the areas was selected and (c) when each of the new schemes is due to commence. [123063]

  Yvette Cooper
  A list of the local authority districts selected for the second wave of Sure Start is given. These were selected using DETR's Index of Local Deprivation augmented with two further measures: low birth weight
  337W
  babies and births to teenage mothers. The catchment area for the local Sure Start programme is chosen by partnerships formed by all those working with young children within the district. The criteria for selection are set out in the guidance for second wave programmes, a copy of which was placed in the Library, and include high levels of need for support services among local families. Second wave Sure Start partnerships have been asked to submit their final plans by 23 May. Most of these are expected to receive approval during the summer and be running in the early autumn.

  Areas (69) invited to submit applications for the second wave of Sure Start (England):

  Ashfield

  Barking and Dagenham

  Barnsley

  Birmingham

  Blyth Valley

  Bolsover

  Bolton

  Boston

  Bournemouth

  Bradford

  Bristol

  Burnley

  Calderdale

  Cannock Chase

  Coventry

  Croydon

  Derwentside

  Dover

  Dudley

  Ealing

  Easington

  Gateshead

  Gloucester

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  Harlow

  Hartlepool

  Hounslow

  Hyndburn

  Ipswich

  Isle of Wight

  Islington

  Kensington and Chelsea

  Kerrier

  Kingston-upon-Hull

  Leeds

  Leicester

  Lewisham

  Lincoln

  Liverpool

  Manchester

  Medway Towns

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  Nottingham

  Nuneaton and Bedworth

  Pendle

  Peterborough

  Portsmouth

  Preston

  Reading

  Redbridge

  Rochdale

  Sedgefield

  Sefton

  Sheffield

  338W

  Slough

  Solihull

  South Tyneside

  Stockton-on-Tees

  Sunderland

  Tameside

  Torbay

  Wakefield

  Walsall

  Wandsworth

  Wansbeck

  Wear Valley

  Westminster

  Wigan

  Wirral

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if, for the third wave of the Sure Start programme, he will list the areas which have so far been selected; when he expects the remainder of these areas to be selected; and when each of these new schemes is due to commence. [123064]

  Yvette Cooper
  The districts for the third phase of Sure Start local programmes will be announced later this year taken local In the first and second waves it has local programmes about six to eight months to develop their plans.

  Ofsted
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what complaints were made against an ofsted inspector following the ofsted inspection of Middlefield primary school; [123109]

  (2) if Mr. Piers Bilston is to be allowed to work as an ofsted inspector [123110]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  These are matters for Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools, Chris Woodhead. I have asked him to write to my hon. Friend and to place a copy of his letter in the Library.

  Teachers (Early Retirement)
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list for each local education authority(a) if it has an early retire teachers and (b) if such a scheme has been terminated, the last year of its operation. [123111]

  Mr. Wicks
  The framework within which local education authorities can offer early retirement to teachers is contained in the Teachers (Compensation for Redundancy and Premature Retirement) Regulations 1997(as amended). It is a matter for each local education authority to determine how best to make use of these arrangements in the light of local circumstances. No information is held centrally on the early retirement policies of individual local education authorities, but our records show that in 1998–99 all local education authorities, with the exception of the City of London and the Isles of Scilly, granted some early retirements.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list for each local education authority the(a) minimum age at which a teacher can be offered an early retirement package and (b) maximum enhancement that can be offered to individual teachers. [123112]
  339W
  Mr. Wicks
  The provisions governing the early retirement arrangements for teachers are contained in the Teachers (Compensation for Redundancy and Premature Retirement) Regulations 1997 (as amended). The earliest age at which a teacher can be offered early retirement is 50; and the maximum enhancement payable is 10 years. These provisions apply to all local education authorities.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many male teachers are still working at age 65 and female teachers at age 60 years in each local education authority as a percentage of the teachers employed by the local education authority. [123114]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The number and percentage of teachers in the maintained nursery, primary, secondary and special sector in England at March 1998 (provisional) are contained in the following table:

  Teachers aged 65 and over

  Men percentage aged 65 and over

  Teachers aged 60 and over

  Women Percentage aged 60 and over

  City of London

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Camden

  0

  0

  20

  2.2

  Greenwich

  0

  0

  16

  1.3

  Hackney1

  1

  0.3

  14

  1.8

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  2

  0.8

  8

  1.4

  Islington

  0

  0

  7

  0.8

  Kensington and Chelsea

  0

  0

  8

  2.5

  Lambeth

  0

  0

  24

  2.5

  Lewisham1

  0

  0

  7

  0.6

  Southwark

  1

  0.3

  14

  1.5

  Tower Hamlets

  0

  0

  14

  1.5

  Wandsworth

  1

  0.2

  20

  1.9

  Westminster

  1

  0.3

  11

  1.5

  Barking and Dagenham

  0

  0

  7

  0.8

  Barnet

  2

  0.3

  28

  1.7

  Bexley

  2

  0.4

  9

  0.8

  Brent

  0

  0

  23

  1.9

  Bromley

  0

  0

  21

  1.5

  Croydon

  2

  0.3

  32

  1.9

  Ealing

  1

  0.2

  13

  0.9

  Enfield

  0

  0

  14

  0.8

  Haringey

  2

  0.4

  18

  1.5

  Harrow

  0

  0

  14

  1.5

  Havering

  0

  0

  21

  1.8

  Hillingdon

  0

  0

  9

  0.7

  Hounslow

  0

  0

  16

  1.2

  Kingston upon Thames

  0

  0

  9

  1.4

  Thames

  0

  0

  9

  1.4

  Merton

  0

  0

  7

  0.9

  Newham

  0

  0

  9

  0.7

  Redbridge

  0

  0

  16

  1.2

  Richmond upon Thames

  0

  0

  1

  0.2

  Sutton

  0

  0

  7

  0.8

  Waltham Forest

  0

  0

  20

  1.6

  Birmingham

  1

  2—

  50

  0.8

  Coventry

  1

  0.1

  23

  1.3

  Dudley

  0

  0

  11

  0.6

  Sandwell

  0

  0

  9

  0.6

  Solihull

  1

  0.2

  2

  0.2

  Walsall

  0

  0

  10

  0.7

  Wolverhampton

  0

  0

  8

  0.6

  Knowsley

  0

  0

  6

  0.6

  Liverpool

  0

  0

  36

  1.3

  St. Helens

  1

  0.2

  9

  0.9

  Sefton

  1

  0.1

  15

  0.9

  340W

  Teachers aged 65 and over

  Men percentage aged 65 and over

  Teachers aged 60 and over

  Women Percentage aged 60 and over

  Wirral

  0

  0

  8

  0.4

  Bolton

  0

  0

  9

  0.6

  Bury

  2

  0.5

  6

  0.7

  Manchester

  2

  0.2

  37

  1.5

  Oldham

  1

  0.1

  10

  0.7

  Rochdale

  0

  0

  7

  0.6

  Salford

  0

  0

  7

  0.5

  Stockport

  0

  0

  10

  0.7

  Tameside

  0

  0

  12

  1.0

  Trafford

  0

  0

  19

  1.5

  Wigan

  1

  0.1

  7

  0.4

  Barnsley

  0

  0

  4

  0.4

  Doncaster

  0

  0

  8

  0.5

  Rotherham

  1

  0.1

  9

  0.6

  Sheffield

  0

  0

  14

  0.6

  Bradford

  0

  0

  19

  0.7

  Calderdale

  0

  0

  7

  0.7

  Kirklees

  0

  0

  12

  0.6

  Leeds

  0

  0

  25

  0.7

  Wakefield

  1

  0.1

  5

  0.3

  Gateshead

  0

  0

  4

  0.4

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  0

  0

  11

  0.8

  North Tyneside

  0

  0

  5

  0.5

  South Tyneside

  1

  0.2

  10

  1.2

  Sunderland

  0

  0

  15

  0.9

  Isles of Scilly

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Bath and North East Somerset

  0

  0

  5

  0.6

  City of Bristol

  0

  0

  8

  0.5

  North Somerset

  1

  0.2

  7

  0.8

  South Gloucestershire

  0

  0

  5

  0.4

  Hartlepool

  0

  0

  1

  0.2

  Middlesbrough

  0

  0

  10

  1.1

  Redcar and Cleveland

  1

  0.3

  2

  0.2

  Stockton on Tees

  0

  0

  7

  0.6

  City of Kingston-upon-Hull

  0

  0

  7

  0.6

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  1

  0.1

  7

  0.5

  North East Lincolnshire

  0

  0

  3

  0.4

  North Lincolnshire

  0

  0

  4

  0.5

  North Yorkshire

  0

  0

  19

  0.8

  York

  0

  0

  5

  0.7

  Bedfordshire

  1

  0.1

  24

  1.1

  Luton

  1

  0.2

  11

  1.1

  Buckinghamshire

  0

  0

  27

  1.1

  Milton Keynes

  0

  0

  7

  0.6

  Derbyshire

  0

  0

  15

  0.5

  City of Derby

  0

  0

  10

  0.8

  Dorset

  0

  0

  7

  0.4

  Poole

  0

  0

  2

  0.3

  Bournemouth

  0

  0

  8

  1.3

  Durham

  0

  0

  22

  0.8

  Darlington

  0

  0

  4

  0.8

  East Sussex

  0

  0

  18

  0.9

  Brighton and Hove

  0

  0

  11

  1.3

  Hampshire

  0

  0

  39

  0.7

  Portsmouth

  0

  0

  7

  0.8

  Southampton

  0

  0

  10

  1.0

  Leicestershire

  0

  0

  22

  0.8

  Leicester City

  0

  0

  8

  0.5

  Rutland

  0

  0

  1

  0.7

  Staffordshire

  0

  0

  31

  0.8

  341W

  Teachers aged 65 and over

  Men Percentage aged 65 and over

  Teachers aged 60 and over

  Women Percentage aged 60 and over

  Stoke-on-Trent

  0

  0

  7

  0.6

  Wiltshire

  0

  0

  17

  0.9

  Swindon

  0

  0

  6

  0.7

  Berkshire

  0

  0

  52

  1.3

  Cambridgeshire

  1

  0.1

  11

  0.3

  Cheshire

  0

  0

  32

  0.6

  Cornwall

  0

  0

  23

  1.1

  Cumbria

  1

  0.1

  7

  0.3

  Devon

  0

  0

  29

  0.6

  Essex

  2

  0.1

  82

  1.0

  Gloucestershire

  1

  0.1

  16

  0.6

  Hereford and Worcester

  0

  0

  13

  0.4

  Hertfordshire

  3

  0.1

  52

  0.9

  Isle of Wight

  0

  0

  7

  1.2

  Kent

  1

  2—

  94

  1.2

  Lancashire

  0

  0

  37

  0.5

  Lincolnshire

  1

  0.1

  22

  0.7

  Norfolk

  1

  0.1

  36

  1.0

  Northamptonshire

  0

  0

  10

  0.3

  Northumberland

  0

  0

  6

  0.4

  Nottinghamshire1

  1

  2—

  24

  0.5

  Oxfordshire

  0

  0

  21

  0.8

  Shropshire

  0

  0

  13

  0.6

  Somerset

  0

  0

  15

  0.7

  Suffolk

  0

  0

  22

  0.7

  Surrey

  2

  0.1

  57

  1.1

  Warwickshire

  1

  0.1

  9

  0.4

  West Sussex

  1

  0.1

  33

  1.0

  England

  50

  2—

  2,043

  0.8

  11997 figures are shown for Hackney, Lewisham and Nottinghamshire due to incomplete annual returns in 1998.

  2means percentage is less than 0.05 per cent.

  Further Education Funding Council
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the staffing complement of the Further Education Funding Council, broken down into(a) those operating at or from headquarters, (b) regional staff and (c) overall full-time equivalents. [122736]

  Mr. Wicks
  The staffing complement of the Further Education Funding Council is:

  (a) Coventry Head Office: 294.03 FTE;

  (b) Regions: 252.06 FTE (including 54 home based inspectors);

  (c) Overall full-time equivalents: 546.63 FTE.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the(a) total staff and (b) full-time equivalent staff of the Training and Enterprise councils. [122737]

  Mr. Wicks
  We do not collect information on TEC staff numbers centrally. However, their statutory accounts as of March 1999 showed that they employed 10,249 staff in total. Where TECs have subsidiaries, the figure is extracted from consolidated accounts and therefore will include staff engaged in Business Link and other activities.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will publish(a) guidance to local education authorities on the education of the children of asylum seekers and (b) details of the distribution of moneys to local education authorities earmarked by his Department for this purpose. [122738]

  Jacqui Smith
  Local education authorities have a legal duty to ensure that education is available for all children of compulsory school age in their area appropriate to age, abilities and aptitudes and any special education needs they may have. This duty applies irrespective of a child's immigration status or rights of residence in a particular area, and so it includes children of asylum seekers. This Department has provided funding to the Refugee Council to support a range of publications on the education of asylum seeker children. We are also in discussion with the Refugee Council and the Local Government Association about whether or not further guidance on the education of asylum seeker children would be helpful to local education authorities.

  Local education authorities receive funding for the children of asylum seekers in the same way as for other children on their school roll through the Standard Spending Assessment. The Ethnic Minority and Traveller Achievement Grant, which is worth £162.5 million in 2000–01, provides resources to help with the acquisition of language skills among asylum seeker children. In addition, we recently provided a grant of £175,000 to the Local Government Association which was used to provide additional help to some local education authorities towards the increased education costs of asylum seeker children.

  On 7 April, the Secretary of State announced that additional funding of £1.5 million will be available in this financial year to support the educational costs of asylum seekers dispersed to cluster areas under the Immigration and Asylum Act. We are currently considering how best to use this additional resource and plan to make an announcement shortly.

  The overall amount spent specifically on the education of asylum seeker children is not held centrally, and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Connexions Service
  Ms Ward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the locations of the pilot projects for the Connexions Service; and if he will make a statement. [120848]

  Mr. Wicks
  [pursuant to his reply, 16 May 2000, c. 101W]: One of the pilot areas was inadvertently omitted. The correct response is as follows.

  I am pleased to announce the extension of the Connexions Service pilots. New pilots are to be established in Lincolnshire, Durham, Hertfordshire, Central London, Oldham, Merseyside, South Yorkshire, and at the Huntercombe Youth Offenders Institution in Oxfordshire. These are additional to the pilots announced by the Secretary of State on 3 February.

HEALTH

  Vaccine Use
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the current review into vaccine usage, including wastage, which his Department has commissioned will be completed; if he will publish its findings; what the precise terms of reference of the review are; and if the review will receive representations from manufacturers of equipment for storing vaccines. [117635]

  Yvette Cooper
  We are currently conducting a review into vaccine usage, including wastage.

  The terms of reference of the review are:
  to examine and report on the distribution, storage and handling of vaccines in samples of mixed rural/urban areas; to determine as far as possible the extent of vaccine wastage; to consider what changes in procedures might be desirable and recommend accordingly.

  We will then publish a code of good practice and guidance on the handling of vaccines at local level.

  We have a list of suppliers of equipment suitable for storage and transport of vaccines and if the review group is agreeable this list will be updated and added as an appendix to the code of good practice.

  Hospital Waiting Times (Essex)
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people had waited 26 weeks for an outpatient appointment at Essex Rivers Healthcare Trust on(a) 31 March 1997 and (b) 31 March 2000. [121459]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 10 May 2000]: The number of patients waiting over 26 weeks for a first outpatient appointment at Essex Rivers Healthcare National Health Service Trust on 31 March 1997 was 404 and for 31 December 1999 (the latest date for which figures are available) it was 1,336.
  Source:
  Form QM08 quarterly waiting times return
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people had waited 13 weeks or more for an outpatient appointment at Essex Rivers Healthcare Trust on(a) 31 March 1997 and (b) 31 March 2000. [121458]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 10 May 2000]: The number of patients waiting over 13 weeks for a first outpatient appointment at Essex Rivers Healthcare National Health Service Trust on 31 March 1997 was 1,821 and 31 December 1999 (the latest date for which figures are available) it was 3,916.
  Source:
  Form QM08 quarterly waiting times return
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people had been waiting(a) in total and (b) for 12 months or more for hospital treatment at Essex Rivers Healthcare Trust on (i) 31 March 1997 and (ii) 31 March 2000. [121460]
  344W
  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 10 May 2000]: The information requested is shown in the table.

  Total number of patients waiting for hospital treatment and the number of patients waiting over 12 months at Essex Rivers Healthcare National Health Service Trust on 31 March 1997 and 29 February 20001

  31 March 1997

  29 February 2000

  Total number of patients waiting

  6,737

  6,212

  Number of patients waiting over 12 months

  6

  534

  1The latest date for which figures are available

  Source:

  Form KH07 quarterly waiting times return

  Monthly waiting times return

  Man-made Insulin
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the risks from man-made insulin; and if he will make a statement. [R] [121777]

  Ms Stuart
  Human (genetically engineered) insulin underwent a rigorous assessment of clinical efficacy and safety at the time of its first licensing in the United Kingdom in 1982.

  Following its introduction, there was much debate about a possible loss of the warning signs of a low blood glucose with human insulin. As a result, a considerable number of scientific studies have been performed comparing animal and human insulin.

  The Committee on Safety of Medicine, has reviewed the safety of human insulin on several occasions since its introduction. During the review process there has been consultation with experts in the field of diabetes as well as with the British Diabetic Association. The Committee has concluded that although some patients have experienced problems on transferring to human insulins and are better suited to animal insulins, there is no evidence of a safety problem specific to human insulin.

  The Medicines Control Agency is responsible for the continuous monitoring of the safety of all licensed medicines and the safety of human insulin is therefore kept under continuous review.

  Infliximab
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the current prescribing status is of Infliximab as a treatment for rheumatoid arthritis and Crohn's Disease. [122081]

  Ms Stuart
  A European licence was granted on 13 August 1999 for Remicade, whose active constituent is infliximab. It is licensed for the treatment of severe, active Crohn's disease in patients who have not responded despite a full and adequate course of therapy with a corticosteroid and/or an immunosuppressant; and for the treatment of fistulising Crohn's disease, in patients who have not responded despite a full and adequate course of therapy with conventional treatment.

  Infliximab is not yet licensed in the United Kingdom for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis.
  345W
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated relating to the prescribing of Infliximab. [122083]

  Ms Stuart
  Neither the Department nor the Medical Research Council has directly commissioned any research into Infliximab.

  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice he(a) has received and (b) intends to seek from the National Institute for Clinical Excellence regarding the prescribing of Infliximab for rheumatoid arthritis and Crohn's Disease. [122085]

  Ms Stuart
  We are considering a number of possible additional topics for appraisal by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence during the year 2000–01. An announcement will be made shortly.

  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what medical trials his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated relating to the efficacy of Infliximab. [122084]

  Ms Stuart
  The Department has not commissioned or evaluated medical trials relating to the efficacy of infliximab. Infliximab was authorised for use through the European Medicines Evaluation Agency who reviewed the available data.

  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance his Department has issued to health authorities and prescribers relating to the prescribing of Infliximab. [122082]

  Ms Stuart
  The Department does not normally issue guidance relating to the prescribing of individual drugs. Clinicians learn about new drugs and therapies through publications such as those from the "National Prescribing Centre", the "British National Formulary" and other professional journals.

  Suicide (Asian Women)
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department has undertaken into

  Admissions by month and health authority of residence NHS hospitals, England 1994–95 to 1998–99

  April

  May

  June

  July

  August

  September

  October

  November

  December

  January

  February

  March

  1994–95

  Bromley HA

  4,199

  4,421

  4,536

  4,703

  4,483

  4,436

  4,539

  4,813

  4,086

  4,593

  4,387

  4,430

  North Cumbria

  5,004

  5,353

  5,446

  5,276

  5,029

  5,426

  5,352

  5,498

  5,003

  5,762

  5,275

  5,108

  1995–96

  Bromley HA

  4,457

  4,841

  4,894

  4,444

  4,564

  4,513

  4,821

  4,919

  3,979

  4,729

  4,541

  4,014

  North Cumbria

  4,937

  5,699

  5,552

  5,625

  5,418

  5,542

  5,798

  5,856

  5,198

  5,907

  5,145

  4,938

  1996–97

  Bromley HA

  4,573

  4,939

  4,476

  5,269

  4,671

  4,814

  5,232

  4,963

  4,444

  4,768

  4,393

  4,088

  North Cumbria

  5,691

  5,525

  5,507

  5,863

  5,220

  5,607

  5,994

  5,622

  5,266

  5,954

  5,401

  4,859

  346W
  the reasons for the rate of suicide among Asian women aged 15 to 24 years; and what action has been taken as a result. [122445]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department has not directly commissioned any research into the reasons for the rate of suicide among Asian women aged 15 to 24. However, we have supported studies undertaken by the Institute of Psychiatry in 1996 into rates of attempted suicide in Asian women in West London and 1998 about the Asian Communities knowledge of depression, suicidal ideation and attempted suicide. Following these studies educational material has been prepared for the Asian Community in four languages. The Department also supported the publication "Ethnicity: An Agenda for Mental Health" by the Royal College of Psychiatrists which included details of research into suicide and attempted suicides across cultures.

  The Department has also provided the Asian Family Counselling Service with funding through the Section 64 scheme for their Nai Umeed (New Hope) project to reduce mental ill health and suicide among Asian women.

  The development of strategies to reduce suicide is a major part of our programme outlined in the White Paper "Saving Lives: Our Healthier Nation". The National Service framework for Mental Health sets a specific evidence-based standard for mental health and social services to prevent suicide. In addition we are bringing together the necessary expertise to work across Government to drive forward a whole range of initiatives to make progress towards achieving the targets to reduce suicides including focusing on high-risk groups, such as Asian women.

  Hospital Admissions
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospital admissions there were in the(a) Bromley and (b) North Cumbria Health Authority area in each month for the last five years that figures are available. [122365]

  Mr. Denham
  The figures shown in the table are a count of admissions per month to National Health Service Hospitals in England for the years 1994–95 to 1998–99 where the patient's health authority of residence was Bromley Health Authority or North Cumbria Health Authority.
  347W

  Admissions by month and health authority of residence NHS hospitals, England 1994–95 to 1998–99

  April

  May

  June

  July

  August

  September

  October

  November

  December

  January

  February

  March

  1997–98

  Bromley HA

  5,123

  4,798

  4,733

  5,178

  4,441

  4,683

  4,949

  4,631

  4,371

  5,830

  5,750

  4,579

  North Cumbria

  5,693

  5,469

  5,705

  5,874

  5,220

  5,713

  5,963

  5,784

  5,461

  5,870

  5,305

  5,479

  1998–99

  Bromley HA

  4,851

  4,758

  5,235

  5,371

  4,857

  5,365

  5,443

  5,386

  4,763

  5,115

  4,981

  5,100

  North Cumbria

  5,521

  5,570

  6,106

  5,979

  5,547

  5,996

  6,069

  6,093

  5,804

  6,022

  5,676

  5,838

  Note:

  Data in this table has not been adjusted for shortfalls in collection (ie it is ungrossed)

  Source:

  Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), Department of Health

  Graduates
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the role of the Royal Colleges in determining the number of students graduating as doctors. [122806]

  Mr. Denham
  The Royal Colleges do not have any formal role in determining the number of students entering undergraduates medical education, or graduating as doctors.

  Lymington Community Hospital
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will make an announcement on the New Lymington Community Hospital private finance initiative. [122831]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 19 May 2000]: Negotiations between Southampton Community Health Services National Health Service Trust and its private sector partner on the proposed private finance initiative scheme for a new community hospital for Lymington are continuing. We expect these to be completed as soon as possible, allowing an announcement to be made soon after.

  Admissions by selected diagnoses and percentage increase of average admissions per month between April–November and December–March for Bromley and North Cumbria HA of residence, NHS hospitals, 1994–95 to 1998–99

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Admission date—months

  Bromley HA

  North Cumbria HA

  Bromley HA

  North Cumbria HA

  Bromley HA

  North Cumbria HA

  Bromley HA

  North Cumbria HA

  Bromley HA

  North Cumbria HA

  April

  35

  26

  36

  30

  42

  33

  46

  36

  42

  50

  May

  35

  38

  44

  34

  40

  35

  34

  34

  40

  25

  June

  33

  19

  42

  42

  26

  25

  28

  24

  64

  39

  July

  29

  22

  33

  28

  38

  22

  31

  21

  45

  22

  August

  35

  23

  29

  25

  37

  18

  37

  16

  30

  20

  September

  34

  25

  25

  26

  31

  18

  31

  20

  32

  38

  October

  37

  26

  42

  36

  36

  25

  55

  37

  55

  27

  November

  54

  30

  53

  46

  39

  42

  46

  31

  50

  37

  April–November average admissions per month

  37

  26

  38

  33

  36

  27

  39

  27

  45

  32

  December

  77

  41

  71

  81

  67

  57

  61

  40

  100

  58

  January

  55

  54

  57

  53

  103

  56

  75

  41

  97

  74

  February

  32

  38

  43

  44

  32

  44

  74

  30

  60

  32

  March1

  24

  27

  19

  19

  36

  25

  55

  29

  46

  28

  December–March average admissions per month

  47

  40

  48

  49

  60

  46

  66

  35

  76

  48

  Euro
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which(a) health trusts, (b) health authorities and (c) other bodies within the NHS (i) have set up and (ii) are setting up projects to prepare for the UK adopting the euro; what these projects are costing each organisation; what the total cost to the Department is; and from which budget sums already spent have come. [122813]

  Ms Stuart
  An update on changeover planning in the public sector was given in the second Outline National Changeover Plan published on 9 March.

  Cold-related Illnesses
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the percentage increase in hospital admissions for cold-related illnesses from December to March above the average for the rest of the year in(a) Bromley and (b) North Cumbria health authority area in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [122368]

  Mr. Denham
  The figures in the table show a count of admissions to National Health Service hospitals in England by selected diagnoses, where the patient's health authority of residence was Bromley or North Cumbria, for the years 1994–95 to 1998–99.
  349W

  Admissions by selected diagnoses and percentage increase of average admissions per month between April–November and December–March for Bromley and North Cumbria HA of residence, NHS hospitals, 1994–95 to 1998–99

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Admission date—months

  Bromley HA

  North Cumbria HA

  Bromley HA

  North Cumbria HA

  Bromley HA

  North Cumbria

  Bromley HA

  North Cumbria

  Bromley HA

  North Cumbria HA

  Percentage increase in average admissions per month between April–November and December–March

  29

  53

  25

  48

  65

  67

  72

  28

  69

  49

  1Admissions which had not finished by the end of the financial year (ie 31 March) are not included in the figures as they do not hold any diagnostic data

  Notes:

  1. The diagnosis codes used were as follows:

  ICD10 (1995–96 to 1998–99)

  JOO—Acute nasopharyngitis (common cold)

  J10-J18—Influenza and pneumonia

  T68—Hypothermia

  T69—Other effects of reduced temperature

  ICD9 (1994–95)

  460—Acute nasopharyngitis (common cold)

  480–487—Influenza and pneumonia

  991․Effects of reduced temperature (including hypothermia)

  2. The main diagnosis is the first of seven diagnosis fields in the HES data set, and provides the main reason why the patient was in hospital.

  3. Data in this table has not been adjusted for shortfalls in collection (ie it is ungrossed).

  Source:

  Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), Department of Health

  Physicians
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will discuss with the General Medical Council their plans for making it a requirement for any physician applying for a new appointment to divulge legal action which he or she may be facing in relation to their medical work. [122753]

  Ms Stuart
  It is not the responsibility of the General Medical Council to require physicians applying for new appointments to divulge legal action which they may be facing in relation to their medical work. The GMC is an independent statutory body, which licenses doctors to practise medicine in the United Kingdom, following an examination of their qualifications. It is their job to ensure that the doctors registered are capable of good medical practice within the scope of their registration, which includes being honest and trustworthy.

  It is the responsibility of all employers to take all possible action to ensure that doctors they appoint are fit to practise. The Department has issued guidance reinforcing the need for pre employment checks for doctors in the "Good Practice Guidance" issued with the "Appointment of Consultants Regulations 1996". Additionally the Department has also issued HSG(98)64, "The Management of Health, Safety and Welfare Issues of NHS Staff", and HSC 1998/212 "Children's Safeguard Review: Choosing with Care", which cover all NHS staff, and advises NHS employers to ensure proper pre-employment checks are made so that employees do not represent a risk to patients.

  The Department also plans to issue a Direction shortly which will require NHS employers to include a declaration in their application forms for hospital and community medical and dental posts, stating whether or not the applicant has been or is the subject of disciplinary action by the police, or a regulatory body in this country or overseas.

  Home Carers
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to(a) investigate the quality of care being provided to people in their homes, (b) introduce a regulatory system to supervise the provision of care by home carers and (c) apply such a system throughout the UK. [122692]

  Mr. Hutton
  In England we are committed to introducing a regulatory framework for home care services. Proposals for this are included in the Care Standards Bill, which was recently introduced in the House.

  All domiciliary care agencies will be required to register, if they provide personal care services. They will be inspected annually by a national care standards commission, established in this Bill.

  The responsibility for information relating to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is a matter for the devolved administrations.

  Child Prostitution
  Mrs. Heal
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps the Government are taking to ensure that children are protected from abuse through prostitution and that those who coerce children into prostitution are(a) investigated and (b) prosecuted. [123051]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Government have today published new Guidance, "Safeguarding Children Involved In Prostitution—Supplementary Guidance to Working Together to Safeguard Children". It establishes that the primary law enforcement effort must be against those who coerce children into and abuse them through prostitution. Children involved in prostitution should be treated primarily as victims of abuse.

  The Guidance sets out an inter-agency approach, based on local protocols, to address this type of abuse. The identification of a child involved in prostitution, or at risk

  351W
  of being drawn into prostitution, should always trigger the agreed local Area Child Protection Committee procedures to ensure the child's safety and welfare, and to enable the police to gather evidence about abusers and coercers. The Guidance forms an important part of the Government's strategy to combat the commercial sexual exploitation of children. Copies of the Guidance will be placed in the Library.

  Cancelled Operations
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many operations were cancelled, and in respect of such operations how many patients involved were not re-admitted within one month, in each quarter since 1995 in(a) England and (b) each health authority in London; and if he will list the percentage change for each year. [122712]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 19 May 2000]: The information requested has been placed in the Library.

  The table shows the information for England. Information for the fourth quarter of 1999–2000 is not yet available.

  Information for London is not available in the format requested as the definition of 'London' health authorities before the London region was established in January 1999 is subject to interpretation. The information in the Library can be used to generate comparisons but these will vary according to the definition of 'London' health authorities used.

  Number of cancelled operations and breaches of Patient's Charter Standard

  Q1

  Q2

  Q3

  Q4

  Whole year

  1994–95

  Cancelled operations

  11,603

  10,186

  11,874

  14,466

  48,129

  Breaches

  1,587

  1,226

  1,343

  2,005

  6,161

  1995–96

  Cancelled operations

  11,860

  11,457

  14,514

  16,652

  54,483

  Breaches

  1,025

  1,129

  1,675

  2,130

  5,959

  Percentage change

  Cancellations

  +13

  Breaches

  -3

  1996–97

  Cancelled operations

  11,595

  11,055

  13,023

  16,374

  52,047

  Breaches

  1,162

  1,229

  1,614

  2,825

  6,830

  Percentage change

  Cancellations

  -5

  Breaches

  +15

  1997–98

  Cancelled operations

  12,019

  11,550

  12,476

  14,460

  50,505

  Breaches

  1,541

  1,492

  1,891

  2,326

  7,250

  Percentage change

  Cancellations

  -3

  Breaches

  +6

  1998–99

  Cancelled operations

  12,384

  11,470

  14,611

  17,685

  56,150

  Breaches

  2,174

  1,495

  2,472

  3,239

  9,380

  Percentage change

  Cancellations

  +11

  Breaches

  +29

  352W

  Number of cancelled operations and breaches of Patient's Charter Standard

  Q1

  Q2

  Q3

  Q4

  Whole year

  1999–2000

  Cancelled operations

  12,313

  12,017

  15,769

  n/a

  n/a

  Breaches

  2,384

  2,186

  3,042

  n/a

  n/a

  Percentage change

  Cancellations

  +13

  Breaches

  -3

  Accident and Emergency Departments
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many accident and emergency departments there were in each year since 1979 for which the figures are available(a) for England, (b) for each health authority in London and (c) for each NHS trust in London; and if he will list the percentage change for each year. [122713]

  Ms Stuart
  Department of Health statistics provide a count of the number of National Health Service trusts with accident and emergency services. They do not count how many individual Departments there are.

  Information on the type of accident and emergency service provided is published in "Bed availability and occupancy, England 1998–99" and information on numbers of accident and emergency attendances is published in "Outpatients and ward attenders, England 1998–99". Copies of both are available in the Library.

  Social Services
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 15 May 2000,Official Report, column 18W, on the Audit Commission report, Charging with Care, if the options he is considering include taking additional legislative powers. [122843]

  Mr. Hutton
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced during debate on the Second Reading of the Care Standards Bill on 18 May 2000 that we will propose an amendment to that Bill that will allow guidance to be issued to councils about charging for non-residential services under section 7 of the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 15 May 2000,Official Report, column 18W, on standard spending assessments, if he will list the ways in which the formula has materially changed in each year since 1997. [122842]

  Mr. Hutton
  The major changes to the standard spending assessment formula for residential care services for older people and the SSA formula for non-residential services for older people since 1997 are as follows.

  For 1998–99 SSAs, the residential care services SSA was revised on the basis of research commissioned from the University of Kent. Previously, four factors influenced the allocation: the number of older people in the authority (including those in institutional settings), the proportion of older people who have a long-term illness, the proportion of older people living in rented accommodation, and the proportion of older people with preserved rights to higher rates of Income Support. In the new formula, the last factor was dropped as the number

  353W
  of preserved rights clients is far less of an influence several years into the community care reforms. The first three factors were retained but four further factors were added:

  the proportion of pensioners living alone;

  the proportion of older people receiving Income Support;

  the proportion of pensioners who are living with someone, but not as a couple;

  the proportion of older people in receipt of Attendance Allowance.

  For 1999–2000 SSAs, the residential services SSA was changed to take account additionally of the numbers of older people claiming Disability Living Allowance and to cease to take account of the number of older people living in institutions.

  Also for 1999–2000 the non-residential services SSA was changed to include an allowance for population sparsity and to reflect each authority's potential to raise income from charges.

  There were no changes to the SSA formulae in 2000–01.

  Construction Contracts
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what construction contracts his Department has awarded to the Joannou and Paraskevaides Group in the last three years. [123142]

  Ms Stuart
  The Department has no record of any construction contract awarded to any firm of this name in the last three years.

  So far as the wider National Health Service is concerned, there are no centrally held records of construction contracts entered into by NHS trusts or health authorities and to survey all of them to answer this question would be at disproportionate cost.

  NHS Waiting Lists
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients have left NHS waiting lists in each month of the last year to be treated in the private healthcare sector. [123125]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Meat Hygiene
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the closure of the Mead Webber meat processing plant at Eardisley in Herefordshire. [122956]

  Ms Stuart
  An independent investigation on the closure of the Mead Webber plant has been agreed following discussions between the Meat Hygiene Service Chief Executive and a representative of Mead Webber Ltd.

  It would be inappropriate to comment further until this investigation has been completed.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Asylum Seekers
  Ms Perham
  l4. To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the most recent figures for the processing of asylum applications. [121544]

  Mrs. Roche
  The number of initial decisions made in March increased by 44 per cent. on the figure for February, rising to 11,340, the highest monthly total ever recorded and the first time ever the level has climbed above 10,000. As a result, the backlog of initial asylum decisions has begun to fall.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has received concerning the administration of the voucher system for asylum seekers and their families. [121557]

  Mrs. Roche
  I and my officials have over the last few months received a number of representations concerning the administration of the voucher system. These include letters from the public and from hon. Members. Parliamentary questions have also been asked in both Houses about the system.

  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the number of failed asylum seekers since 1997 who have disappeared within the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [121559]

  Mrs. Roche
  No official estimate has been made of the numbers of failed asylum seekers since 1997 who have disappeared in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to use the Farringdon House Territorial Army Centre in North Cheam for use as accommodation for asylum seekers. [122841]

  Mrs. Roche
  The National Asylum Support Service has no plans to use the Farringdon House Territorial Army Centre in North Cheam to accommodate asylum seekers.

  Rural Policing
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on rural policing. [121545]

  Mr. Straw
  We recognise the policing needs of rural areas. We will publish a rural White Paper later this year, including a section dealing specifically with rural crime. At present, the particular needs of rural areas are taken into account in the current police funding formula that distributes approximately £35 million of available funding to authorities with low population density, and so benefits rural areas.

  Rural areas also participate in the range of initiatives already available, the Crime Fighting Fund, Crime Reduction Programme and recently approved funds to build a modern crime fighting machine and to modernise the police service.
  355W
  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which police authorities will benefit from his proposed additional funding for policing in rural areas. [121565]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  We have retained the sparsity element introduced by the previous Government in the formula for calculating police funding of 0.5 per cent. (about £35 million) which benefits rural forces.

  An added 2 per cent. sparsity element was also used in allocating 4,000 of the 5,000 police officers being recruited through the crime fighting fund. The remaining 1,000 officers were divided between the 34 forces putting in the best bids. In deciding the allocation of resources between forces, we took particular account of the information forces supplied to explain the size of their bids, including the particular need of rural areas.

  Under the Crime Reduction Programme, some of the initiatives fund rural crime reduction projects. Under the Targeted Policing Initiative, Northumbria police, in partnership with Tynedale district council, local parish councils and the Northumberland Social Services and Probation Service, have been granted £40,000 for a project to develop an integrated strategy to tackle crime and disorder in rural towns and remote villages.

  A number of projects funded under the Closed Circuit Television Initiative requirement have been relaxed from twice to one-and-a-half times the national average burglary rate. This will allow more areas to bid funding, though the burglary rate in most rural areas is still well below this level.

  Police Manpower (Greater London)
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if minimum manpower shift levels are being applied in the Metropolitan police area. [121546]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis tells me that the level of manpower for each core shift is an operational matter for borough commanders. Where borough commanders have agreed minimum manpower shift levels, they are set for each shift according to local demands.

  Illegal Immigrants
  Mr. Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress is being made in checking heavy goods vehicles for illegal would-be immigrants seeking to enter this country. [121548]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Immigration Service has increased the number of checks on vehicles entering the United Kingdom. These checks support the civil penalty provisions of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, which were recently implemented.

  Domestic Violence
  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has to protect women who have come to the United Kingdom through marriage and are subject to domestic violence. [121549]
  356W
  Mr. Boateng
  We have introduced a range of measures to protect women from overseas who have applied to settle in the United Kingdom—but are subject to violence by their spouse or partner—including a concession outside the immigration rules and the provision of culturally appropriate support by the police, National Health Service, housing and other agencies.

  Crime and Disorder Partnerships (Schools)
  Mr. Ian Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with his counterparts in the Department for Education and Employment to ensure that schools are fully involved in local partnerships to combat crime and disorder. [121550]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Following agreement with Ministers in the Department for Education and Employment, we have designated schools as bodies with which local authorities and police forces must co-operate in partnership to develop and implement their local crime and disorder reduction strategies.

  Crime Statistics
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department by how much crime increased in the Metropolitan police area during the year to 31 March; and if he will make a statement. [121551]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis informs me that the total number of notifiable offences in the Metropolitan Police District for the year ending 31 March 2000 was some 12.6 per cent. higher than that in the previous financial year.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the proportion of crime, based on(a) recorded crime statistics and (b) the British Crime Survey, which (i) does not result in a caution or conviction and (ii) is not cleared up; and if he will make a statement. [123227]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The latest assessment of the proportion of crimes not cleared up and those not resulting in a caution or a conviction is detailed on page 29 of "Digest 4—Information on the Criminal Justice System in England and Wales", published by the Home Office in October 1999. A copy of this publication is available in the Library.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what the recorded crime clear-up rate in each Metropolitan Police division was in each of the last five years for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement; [123150]

  (2) how many recorded crimes there were in each Metropolitan Police division in each of the last five years for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement; [123149]
  357W
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The requested details are included in the table.

  Recorded crimes and clear-up rates in Metropolitan Police Divisions

  Offences

  1995–96 Percentage clear-ups

  Offences

  1996–97 Percentage clear-ups

  Offences

  1997–98 Percentage clear-ups

  Offences

  1998–99 Percentage clear-ups

  Offences

  1999–2000 Percentage clear-ups

  Barking and Dagenham

  14,156

  23

  14,436

  21

  13,733

  26

  17,470

  19

  19,567

  14

  Barnet

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  26,153

  23

  30,708

  16

  Barnet and Hertsmere

  11,735

  27

  11,049

  29

  10,214

  22

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Belgravia

  7,428

  18

  6,588

  17

  7,584

  22

  9,685

  27

  8,991

  20

  Bexley

  16,685

  17

  16,120

  25

  14,561

  22

  16,788

  17

  20,680

  14

  Brent

  24,633

  19

  24,186

  24

  22,621

  23

  28,479

  21

  33,253

  13

  Bromley

  24,445

  23

  22,176

  23

  20,356

  24

  24,172

  20

  26,474

  14

  Brompton

  15,300

  21

  15,332

  23

  14,816

  25

  15,630

  21

  17,410

  13

  Camden

  36,379

  19

  36,281

  27

  35,066

  28

  41,754

  25

  45,800

  16

  Charing Cross

  10,400

  19

  10,282

  15

  11,633

  16

  15,541

  22

  19,185

  16

  Colindale

  16,960

  23

  17,504

  27

  15,747

  29

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Croydon

  32,360

  24

  29,222

  29

  27,539

  27

  33,888

  22

  37,743

  16

  Ealing

  15,822

  22

  15,354

  23

  15,572

  26

  18,267

  26

  20,765

  20

  Enfield

  25,572

  21

  26,755

  23

  24,914

  20

  28,847

  21

  33,529

  13

  Fulham

  12,590

  24

  11,489

  25

  12,508

  27

  14,958

  24

  16,672

  17

  Greenwich

  30,141

  25

  26,799

  30

  23,320

  25

  28,404

  23

  29,991

  20

  Hammersmith

  9,620

  20

  9,522

  21

  8,862

  25

  10,383

  18

  11,928

  13

  Haringey

  25,251

  20

  26,390

  22

  25,002

  24

  30,862

  22

  34,075

  22

  Harrow

  13,659

  18

  14,737

  22

  14,138

  25

  14,984

  27

  16,777

  18

  Havering

  14,761

  24

  15,811

  19

  14,950

  27

  17,162

  24

  18,787

  18

  Heathrow

  5,057

  29

  5,701

  35

  5,404

  42

  5,291

  40

  6,717

  28

  Hertsmere

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5,807

  22

  7,333

  14

  Hillingdon

  22,590

  23

  22,463

  24

  20,798

  21

  23,427

  17

  26,281

  12

  Hounslow

  23,280

  25

  21,805

  28

  21,209

  28

  25,290

  19

  31,032

  13

  Islington

  27,134

  25

  27,615

  24

  24,994

  23

  32,251

  21

  38,427

  15

  Kingston Upon Thames

  16,376

  23

  15,812

  26

  14,176

  32

  16,566

  28

  18,401

  19

  Lambeth

  36,259

  23

  38,057

  25

  36,348

  23

  43,898

  19

  52,212

  13

  Lewisham

  28,008

  25

  26,408

  30

  23,524

  27

  28,088

  21

  29,628

  19

  Marylebone

  17,730

  28

  17,881

  29

  16,876

  27

  18,238

  25

  19,764

  18

  Merton

  15,919

  21

  14,691

  27

  13,883

  25

  16,587

  19

  16,812

  16

  Newham

  26,104

  22

  26,607

  22

  27,298

  23

  31,899

  19

  38,335

  14

  Notting Hill

  9,876

  20

  10,634

  19

  9,845

  23

  11,400

  23

  13,369

  13

  Paddington

  12,300

  18

  12,652

  20

  12,940

  24

  15,278

  20

  16,849

  15

  Redbridge

  20,062

  30

  21,357

  23

  21,767

  23

  28,273

  20

  30,106

  12

  Richmond upon Thames

  13,728

  23

  13,360

  22

  12,355

  24

  13,727

  18

  15,504

  14

  Shoreditch and Hackney

  14,110

  23

  14,136

  22

  13,795

  27

  17,394

  25

  19,897

  15

  Southall

  11,765

  22

  13,252

  26

  12,579

  26

  16,119

  21

  17,972

  15

  Southwark

  36,204

  26

  38,946

  32

  33,806

  28

  40,116

  26

  43,734

  19

  Spelthorne

  6,766

  32

  6,306

  27

  5,562

  24

  6,844

  25

  6,925

  19

  Stoke Newington

  14,409

  20

  14,671

  19

  14,093

  24

  17,394

  20

  19,110

  15

  Sutton

  19,246

  21

  18,262

  25

  17,163

  24

  19,181

  24

  21,319

  18

  Tower Hamlets

  23,375

  21

  23,002

  21

  23,569

  24

  29,789

  23

  34,071

  17

  Waltham Forest

  19,681

  24

  20,833

  24

  20,534

  27

  24,278

  24

  27,035

  19

  Wandsworth

  30,232

  23

  28,323

  24

  26,491

  23

  32,636

  16

  35,527

  13

  West End Central

  12,423

  29

  13,242

  23

  15,896

  20

  20,286

  23

  22,826

  16

  Other Units ('Squads')

  285

  30

  144

  28

  238

  11

  770

  41

  526

  37

  Total

  820,816

  23

  816,193

  25

  778,279

  25

  934,254

  22

  1,052,047

  16

  Notes:

  There was a change in counting rules for recorded crime on 1 April 1998, with the aim of wherever possible measuring one crime per victim. The coverage of offences was also expanded. It was estimated that these changes in themselves increased the overall number of crimes recorded by the Metropolitan Police by 21.7 per cent. Numbers of offences and clear-up rates before and after this date are not directly comparable.

  The basis for the collection of clear-ups changed on 1 April 1999. The major changes were a reduction in the number of offences taken into consideration being counted (only those that were previously recorded will now be counted), and with more stringent rules applying to `prison visit' clear-ups. Clear-up rates subsequent to this date are not directly comparable with previous years.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many recorded crimes there were in the Metropolitan police area, in each category of crime and in total, in each of the last five years for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement; [123152]

  (2) what the recorded crime clear-up rate for the Metropolitan police was, for each category of crime and in total, in each of the last five years for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [123151]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The requested details are included in the table.
  358W

  Metropolitan Police District—Category totals and clear-up rates

  Offences

  Percentage cleared up

  1995–96

  Violence against the person

  39,093

  64

  Sexual offences

  5,845

  54

  Robbery

  28,682

  22

  Burglary

  169,537

  23

  Theft and handling stolen goods

  386,425

  18

  Fraud and forgery

  33,679

  45

  Criminal damage1

  149,507

  15

  Drug offences2

  —

  —

  Other offences

  8,048

  83

  Total

  820,816

  23

  359W

  Metropolitan Police District—Category totals and clear-up rates

  Offences

  Percentage cleared up

  1996–97

  Violence against the person

  46,951

  68

  Sexual offences

  6,993

  59

  Robbery

  28,690

  22

  Burglary

  158,423

  22

  Theft and handling stolen goods

  375,916

  19

  Fraud and forgery

  39,442

  46

  Criminal damage1

  149,608

  17

  Drug offences2

  —

  —

  Other offences

  10,170

  88

  Total

  816,193

  25

  1997–98

  Violence against the person

  49,959

  67

  Sexual offences

  7,654

  59

  Robbery

  26,731

  23

  Burglary

  136,365

  22

  Theft and handling stolen goods

  365,202

  18

  Fraud and forgery

  43,437

  38

  Criminal damage1

  137,387

  19

  Drug offences2

  —

  —

  Other offences

  11,544

  85

  Total

  778,279

  25

  1998–99

  Violence against the person

  131,549

  44

  Sexual offences

  8,102

  42

  Robbery

  26,330

  16

  Burglary

  123,861

  13

  Theft and handling stolen goods

  383,665

  14

  Fraud and forgery

  80,541

  15

  Criminal damage1

  136,870

  13

  Drug offences2

  32,152

  97

  Other offences

  11,184

  58

  Total

  934,254

  22

  1999–2000

  Violence against the person

  156,880

  31

  Sexual offences

  9,189

  32

  number of offenders convicted at all courts within the Metropolitan police area for indictable offences by type of offence, 1994–98, 1999 (January to September)1

  Type of offence

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999 (January to September)1

  Violence against the person

  4,650

  3,744

  4,412

  5,209

  5,444

  3,629

  Sexual offences

  634

  596

  564

  595

  576

  400

  Burglary

  4,482

  4,176

  3,707

  3,525

  3,386

  2,389

  Robbery

  1,249

  1,407

  1,551

  1,406

  1,358

  997

  Theft and handling stolen goods

  19,805

  16,249

  16,790

  17,485

  18,788

  13,917

  Fraud and forgery

  3,107

  3,020

  2,987

  3,055

  3,434

  2,472

  Criminal damage

  1,727

  1,470

  1,359

  1,612

  1,626

  1,440

  Drug offences

  7,205

  6,662

  6,672

  7,716

  9,765

  7,387

  Other (excluding motoring)

  8,094

  7,796

  7,562

  7,988

  7,695

  5,303

  Motoring offences

  2,006

  1,365

  1,096

  1,036

  1,002

  600

  Total

  52,959

  46,485

  46,700

  49,627

  53,074

  38,534

  1Provisional

  Crime Prevention (Technology)
  Mr. Burgon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with representatives of the business community about the use of technology to prevent crime. [121554]
  360W

  Metropolitan Police District—Category totals and clear-up rates

  Offences

  Percentage cleared up

  Robbery

  36,317

  12

  Burglary

  129,145

  10

  Theft and handling stolen goods

  426,235

  10

  Fraud and forgery

  105,150

  9

  Criminal damage1

  151,590

  10

  Drug offences2

  26,233

  91

  Other offences

  11,308

  43

  Total

  1,052,047

  16

  1Including all criminal damage.

  2Prior to the change in counting rules for recorded crime on 1 April 1998, the only drug offence counted was drug trafficking, which was included in "other offences".

  Notes:

  1. There was a change in counting rules for recorded crime on 1 April 1998, with the aim of wherever possible measuring one crime per victim. The coverage of offences was also expanded. It was estimated that these changes in themselves increased the overall number of crimes recorded by the Metropolitan Police by 21.7 per cent. Numbers of offences and clear-up rates before and after this date are not directly comparable.

  2. The basis for the collection of clear-ups changed on 1 April 1999. The major changes were a reduction in the number of offences taken into consideration being counted (only those that were previously recorded will now be counted), and with more stringent rules applying to "prison visit" clear-ups. Clear-up rates subsequent to this date are not directly comparable with previous years.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many convictions there were in the Metropolitan police area, in each category of crime and in total, in each of the last five years for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [123153]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The available information on offenders convicted within the Metropolitan police area comes from the Home Office Court Proceedings Database and is given in the table.

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  We have established a number of initiatives to discuss with the business community the use of technology to prevent crime. We are working with industry to encourage the comprehensive electronic tagging or "chipping" of goods. The ability to track and trace goods effectively will have far-reaching implications for commerce and crime reduction. We are funding the
  361W
  Foresight Crime Prevention Panel, which includes business and industry representatives and is specifically seeking to identify opportunities for using advances in technology to reduce crime. Action teams, with representatives and is specifically seeking to identify opportunities for using advances in technology to reduce crime. Action teams, with representatives from business community, have also been established to look at retail, vehicle and property crime, including the use of technology.

  Germar Rudolf
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement concerning the case of Germar Rudolf. [121552]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Government are aware of the reports in some quarters that Mr. Rudolf may be in the United Kingdom. The police have also been informed of the allegations against Mr. Rudolf.

  Closed Circuit Television (Chelmsford)
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the impact of CCTV in Chelmsford on the level of crime; and if he will make a statement. [121553]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Essex Police crime statistics show a 7 per cent. reduction in recorded crime in Chelmsford Town Centre since the Closed Circuit Television system became operational in January 1996. The true reduction is greater, as the figures are affected by a statistical change in 1998 in the method of recording violent crime. There have been 1,012 arrests directly attributable to CCTV, mainly for theft and public order offences.

  E-commerce
  Mr. St. Aubyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent discussions he has had with the Department of Trade and Industry concerning e-commerce. [121555]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I have had a number of discussions with the Minister for Small Business and E-Commerce concerning e-commerce, particularly on the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill and the Electronic Communications Bill. Officials in the Home Office and the Department of Trade and Industry are working together closely to pursue the Government's policy of making the United Kingdom the best and the safest place in the world to conduct e-commerce.

  Home Detention Curfew Scheme
  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many further offences have been committed by prisoners released under the Home Detention Curfew scheme while on the scheme; and if he will make a statement. [121558]

  Mr. Boateng
  Information based on notifications direct to the Prison Service and data from the Police National Computer show that fewer than 2 per cent. of prisoners placed on the Home Detention Curfew scheme since January 1999 have committed further offences while subject to the scheme. As at 15 May 2000, the Prison 362W
  Service knew of 395 cases where curfewees had been convicted or cautioned for offences committed while subject to the scheme, or were awaiting prosecution for such offences. The total number of offences known to the Prison Service was 701.

  Mr. Hope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners placed on the Home Detention Curfew scheme have committed further offences while subject to the scheme; and if he will make a statement. [123374]

  Mr. Boateng
  The latest information shows that fewer than 2 per cent. of the 20,632 prisoners placed on Home Detention Curfew by 15 May 2000 had committed further offences while subject to the scheme.

  Interrogation of data on the Police National Computer (PNC) (covering 14,646 of the 14,837 prisoners placed on Home Detention Curfew up to 31 December 1999) indicates that, as at 13 April 2000, 351 of this group had been convicted of, or cautioned for, an offence committed while subject to the Home Detention Curfew scheme, or had a prosecution pending in respect of such an offence. In addition, there are 44 cases where the Prison Service has been notified of new charges involving prisoners placed on Home Detention Curfew in 2000 and prisoners placed on Home Detention Curfew in 1999 who could not be traced on the Police National Computer. (The figure of 44 excludes cases where the Prison Service is aware that charges were brought but not proceeded with, or resulted in acquittal). This means that at 15 May 2000 the total number of cases where the Prison Service knew of convictions, cautions or pending prosecutions in respect of curfewees was 395, or 1.9 per cent. of the total.

  Table 1 gives a breakdown of the offences which led to convictions or cautions or where prosecutions are pending. Table 2 shows the number of cases in which these offences are similar in type to the original offence leading to a custodial sentence, and provides a breakdown.

  Figures used in responding to previous Parliamentary Questions in relation to reoffending by those placed on the Home Detention Curfew (both in 1999 and 2000) were based on information about charges reported to the Prison Service by the police. The Prison Service had been previously notified of 171 cases where charges had been brought against offenders placed on Home Detention Curfew in 1999, and 37 cases involving offenders placed on Home Detention Curfew in 2000.

  The interrogation of data from the Police National Computer was undertaken as part of the continuing evaluation of the Home Detention Curfew scheme by the Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate. The evaluation exercise has not to date covered those placed on Home Detention Curfew in the current year, but regular updates are planned.

  The figures obtained from the Police National Computer cannot be compared directly with those previously used in responding to Parliamentary Questions. The new figures are based on convictions, cautions and pending prosecutions, rather than charges reported to the Prison Service by the police. However, the figures show that there has been some under-reporting of charges by the police.
  363W
  This means that the procedures for notifying the Prison Service of curfewees charged with further offences have not fully been followed. These procedures are set down in Home Office Circular 1/99, issued to Chief Constables and police Home Detention Curfew Liaison Officers in January 1999. The circular requires the police to notify the Prison Service either at the time the charge is laid or at the first opportunity thereafter. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has today written to the President of the Association of Chief Police Officers, asking that the Association give this matter their attention and identify what steps can be taken to improve compliance with the circular. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary will also be monitoring actions taken by the police to improve compliance with the notification procedures.

  As a reinforcing measure, other agencies will also be asked to alert the Prison Service to any case that comes to their attention, where a curfewee has been charged with an offence committed while subject to curfew. As already indicated, the Police National Computer will also be interrogated on a regular basis in order to monitor the effectiveness of the notification procedures, and to ensure that information on the numbers of convictions, cautions and pending prosecutions is kept up to date.

  Although more curfewees have been charged with further offences than originally notified, overall compliance with the scheme remains high. Taking account of the new information, the successful completion rate is around 94 per cent. (93.6 per cent.).

  The scheme is designed to ensure a better transition for short-term offenders between custody and the community. Prisoners are only placed on Home Detention Curfew after a careful risk assessment. The safety of the public is paramount at all times and, with this in mind, Prisoner Governors will be reminded of the importance, when considering a prisoner's suitability for Home Detention Curfew, of assessing the likelihood of reoffending while subject to curfew.

  Table 1: Breakdown of cases involving offences which led to convictions or cautions or where prosecutions are pending

  Offence

  Number

  Total

  395

  Manslaughter

  0

  Other homicide and attempted homicide

  Attempted murder

  0

  Making threats to kill

  5

  Conspire, aid, incite murder

  0

  Death by reckless driving

  0

  Wounding

  Wounding (inflicting GBH)

  6

  Assault occasioning ABH

  11

  Assault with intent to cause GBH

  1

  Assaults

  Assault with intent to resist arrest

  0

  Other assault

  16

  Obstruct/resist constable

  0

  Assault on police officer

  9

  Cruelty to children

  0

  364W

  Table 1: Breakdown of cases involving offences which led to convictions or cautions or where prosecutions are pending

  Offence

  Number

  Other violence against the person

  Cause explosion, place explosive

  0

  Possess firearms with intent

  0

  Possess offensive weapon

  4

  Other violence against the person

  4

  Sexual Offences

  Rape

  13

  Buggery

  0

  Indecent assault

  0

  Unlawful sexual intercourse

  0

  Abduction

  0

  Bigamy

  0

  Burglary

  21

  Robbery

  4

  Taking and driving away

  2

  Other theft

  94

  Handling stolen goods

  14

  Fraud

  11

  Forgery

  2

  Drugs offences

  Production

  0

  Supply

  8

  Possession with intent

  4

  Possession

  30

  Unlawful import/export

  1

  Other drugs offences

  6

  Arson

  1

  Criminal damage

  19

  In charge or driving under the influence of drink or drugs

  18

  Reckless driving

  3

  Other motoring offences

  34

  Drunkenness

  0

  Blackmail

  0

  Kidnapping

  0

  Affray

  7

  Violent disorder

  7

  Perjury/libel/pervert the course of justice

  2

  Threat/disorderly behaviour

  4

  Breach of Court Order

  13

  Other offences

  22

  Offence not recorded

  9

  1 One of the three rape cases was listed on PNC as pending prosecution, and is therefore included in the table. However, the Prison Service has since been informed that the offender was acquitted. The two other rape cases were previously known to the Prison Service and have been referred to in replies to earlier Parliamentary Questions.

  Notes:

  1. The table includes all 351 cases drawn from the PNC analysis and the 44 cases where the data is based on police notifications (excluding those cases where, following initial notification of a charge, the Prison Service was informed that the charges had been withdrawn or resulted in acquittal).

  2. Where a curfewee was convicted of, or cautioned for more than one offence, or prosecution is pending in respect of more than one offence, the table shows the most serious offence.

  Table 2: Cases where new offences are similar in character to index offence

  Offence

  Number

  Total

  136

  Homicide and attempted homicide

  0

  including:

  Manslaughter

  365W

  Table 2: Cases where new offences are similar in character to index offence

  Offence

  Number

  Attempted murder

  Conspire, aid, incite murder

  Wounding and assault

  8

  including:

  Wounding (inflicting GBH)

  Assault occasioning ABH

  Assault with intent to cause GBH

  Assault with intent to resist arrest

  Other assault

  Obstruct/resist constable

  Assault on police officer

  Other violence against the person

  0

  including:

  Cause explosion, place explosive

  Possess firearms with intent

  Possess offensive weapon

  Other violence against the person

  Sexual offences

  0

  including:

  Rape

  Buggery

  Indecent assault

  Unlawful sexual intercourse

  Drugs offences

  17

  including:

  Production

  Supply

  Possession with intent

  Possession

  Unlawful import/export

  Other drugs offences

  Driving offences

  11

  including:

  Death by reckless driving

  In charge or driving under the influence of drink or drugs

  Reckless driving

  Other motoring offences

  Taking and driving away

  Theft and Burglary

  89

  including:

  Burglary

  Robbery

  Other theft

  Handling stolen goods

  Fraud

  Forgery

  Disorderly and Threatening Behaviour

  6

  including:

  Making threats to kill

  Criminal damage

  Affray

  Violent disorder

  Threat/disorderly behaviour

  Drunkenness

  Kidnap/Abduction

  1

  including:

  Kidnapping

  Abduction

  False imprisonment

  Other offences

  including:

  Arson

  1

  Bigamy

  0

  366W

  Table 2: Cases where new offences are similar in character to index offence

  Offence

  Number

  Blackmail

  0

  Perjury/libel/pervert the course of justice

  0

  Breach of Court Order

  3

  Cruelty to children

  0

  Notes:

  1. The table compares the most serious index offence with all the offences involved in the fresh convictions, cautions and pending prosecutions.

  2. Similar offences are defined for the purpose as offences within groups of offences shown above. All "stand alone" offences are not counted as similar in character to any other offence or group of offences.

  Anti-social Behaviour Orders
  Mr. McWalter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the causes of the low take-up of anti-social behaviour orders. [121560]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Records of the number of orders granted are not currently held centrally, although we believe that about 40–45 orders are currently in force. The number of orders in force has been increasing steadily and continues to do so. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary set up an action group last year to consider issues relating to the use of anti-social behaviour orders. The group recommended a series of 10 regional seminars to provide an opportunity to share good practice, and to consult on the terms of a model agreement or protocol which local partnerships can use as a basis for effective co-operation in tackling anti-social behaviour. The seminars have now been successfully completed and I look forward to a further increase in the number of orders granted.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many anti-social behaviour orders under the provisions of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 have been issued against persons under the age of 16 years. [121563]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  As I stated in my reply to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) on 21 February Robbery 2000,Official Report, column 824W, records of the numbers of anti-social behaviour orders issued are not currently held centrally. We understand that since the relevant provision came into force on 1 April 1999, at least 13 anti-social behaviour orders have been in respect of persons aged under 16.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many anti-social behaviour orders have been implemented in the Greater London area in the last 12 months. [122369]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Figures for the number of orders granted are not yet held centrally. We are, however, aware of one order currently in force in the Greater London area.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the implementation of the Government's anti-social behaviour strategy in(a) England (b) the North West region and (c) the area covered by the Greater Manchester Police Authority; and if he will make a statement. [122574]
  367W
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  We will be reviewing the effectiveness of anti-social behaviour orders early next year.

  Police Racism
  Mr. Casale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about progress in tackling racism in the police force. [121561]

  Mr. Straw
  In February, I published my first annual report on progress of the implementation of my action plan to take forward the recommendations of the report of the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry, a copy of which is in the Library. I was able to report that over half of the report's 70 recommendations had already been implemented and work was under way on the others. The Bill to extend the Race Relations Act 1976 to the police and other public authorities was introduced in December 1999. I have set targets for forces on recruitment, retention and progression of ethnic minority officers. In addition, a research programme to broaden the understanding of stop and search and the way it can be improved is currently well advanced. I have made increasing trust and confidence in policing among minority ethnic communities one of just two ministerial priorities for the current year.

  Disorder (Parliament Square and Whitehall)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have been charged with offences in connection with the disorder in Parliament Square and Whitehall on 1 May; how many have been charged with criminal damage to(a) the Cenotaph and (b) the statue of Sir Winston Churchill; and if he will make a statement. [121562]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Metropolitan police advise me that 51 persons have been charged so far in relation to the disorder in London on I May. In addition, seven people have been given a caution or formal warning.

  No person has yet been charged in connection with damage to the Cenotaph, but one person has been charged and convicted of criminal damage to the Sir Winston Churchill statue. He received a sentence of 30 days imprisonment and a compensation order of £250.

  Female Circumcision
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received concerning training for police officers for the policing of the Prohibition of Female Circumcision Act 1985. [121564]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The only representations on this subject were parliamentary questions from my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Ms McCafferty), which I replied to on 18 April 2000,Official Report, column 421W and on 17 May 2000, Official Report, columns 171–72W.

  Hilda Murrell Case
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his answer of 14 April 2000,Official Report, column 292W, concerning the Hilda Murrell case, what options are being examined in
  368W
  the discussions with the forensic science service Major Crime Specialist Adviser on the strategic way ahead; and if he will make a statement on the use of second generation multiplan plus and low copy number systems. [121566]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I understand that advice has now been received from the Major Crime Specialist Adviser, but that to disclose its nature could reduce the chances of a successful outcome to the investigation. I shall write to my hon. Friend about the forensic techniques mentioned.

  Anti-drugs Strategy
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent assessment he has made of the effectiveness of his measures against drug dealers; and if he will make a statement. [121567]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Activity aimed at stifling the availability of illegal drugs on our streets is set out in the Government's 10-year anti-drugs strategy for which demanding targets have been set in the United Kingdom Anti-drugs Co-ordinator's National Plan. The police, with other enforcement agencies, have been working towards achieving these and interim targets. The United Kingdom Anti-drugs Co-ordinator will report on progress in his second annual report, to be published in the summer.

  The "Drug Seizure and Offender Statistics Bulletin", published in February, reports that the overall number of seizures in the United Kingdom went up by 8 per cent. in 1998 to 149,900. The number of persons found guilty of, or cautioned for, offences of unlawful supply and of possession with intent to supply, totalled 16,246.

  Immigration and Nationality Directorate
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what targets he has set for the Immigration and Nationality Directorate to respond to hon. Members' correspondence. [121568]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Home Office Public Service Agreement commits the Immigration and Nationality Directorate to reply to 95 per cent. of correspondence from hon. Members within 15 working days.

  Neighbourhood Watch
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what support his Department currently gives to neighbourhood watch schemes. [121569]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Home Office does not provide core funding for neighbourhood watch. Rather, we direct funding towards national initiatives designed to support and encourage the local activity. We also support the National Neighbourhood Watch Association in its efforts to promote increased involvement in neighbourhood watch.

  Drug-related Crime
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the increase in the number of crimes in the last year which were related to illegal drugs. [121556]
  369W
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The statistical data are collected on drug offences but not on other offences which may have been committed due to drug taking. In the 12 months ending September 1999, the police in England and Wales recorded 129,782 notifiable drug offences, a decrease of 9.2 per cent. on the corresponding period in the previous year.

  A programme of research carried out on behalf of the Home Office by the University of Cambridge, involving the drug testing of arrestees, indicates a strong connection between drug misuse, particularly heroin and crack/cocaine, and crime. The research suggests that about one third of all property crime is committed in order to buy these drugs. Further data are being analysed and it is hoped to publish the next set of full results in the summer.

  Humberside Police
  Shona McIsaac
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on Humberside police's bid for funding for extra officers from the Crime Fighting Fund. [121936]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I refer the hon. Member to the announcement I made on 17 May 2000,Official Report, columns 169–70W, which sets out details of the revised distribution of the 5,000 recruits under the Crime Fighting Fund for all forces in England and Wales.

  Humberside police bid for 251 officers and were allocated a total of 74 officers. Although the total number of officers has not changed, the accelerated scheme will enable Humberside to recruit 47 extra officers under the scheme this year and 27 next year.

  The Humberside police bid was considered most carefully, as were all the bids. 4,000 of the 5,000 officers were allocated between forces using the Police Grant and Standard Spending Assessment formula, which included an additional 2 per cent. sparsity factor to benefit forces such as Humberside that cover rural as well as urban areas. The remaining 1,000 officers were divided between the 34 forces putting in the best bids.

  Begging (Children)
  Ann Keen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with local authorities on their interpretation of the definition of child in need contained in section 17(1) of the Children Act 1989, in respect of babies and children involved in begging; and what plans he has to establish national guidelines on this issue. [122373]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has had no discussion with local authorities on their interpretation of the definition of "child in need" contained in section 17(1) of the Children Act 1989, in respect of babies and children involved in begging. The most objectionable aspects of begging are already covered by the criminal law. Where there are child protection concerns, local authorities have a statutory duty under Section 47 of the Children Act 1989 to make inquiries where they have reasonable cause for concern that a child may need protection.

  The law has always made clear how unacceptable it is to use children for the purposes of begging. It is there to be enforced as and when the situation requires it.

  Prison Officers (Retirement Age)
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will raise the maximum retirement age for prison officers from 60 to 65 years. [122523]

  Mr. Boateng
  In the light of the Home Office review of age retirement policy, the Prison Service is reviewing the age retirement of prison officers and other related grades. It is intended that this review will be completed within the next few months.

  Wheelclampers
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many wheelclampers working on private land have been prosecuted since 1990; [122519]

  (2) what powers of arrest will be given to the police in respect of wheelclampers who operate without licences granted under the proposed Private Security Regulations. [122520]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Wheelclamping on private land is not a criminal offence, although there have been civil actions. Information on such actions is not collected centrally. The number of criminal offences committed by wheelclampers during their work on private land is not available, as the Home Office Proceedings Database does not identify the employment status of a defendant.

  We will be introducing proposals to regulate wheelclampers as soon as parliamentary time allows.

  Nicholas Tucker
  Mr. Woolas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects the Criminal Cases Review Commission to report on the case of Nicholas Tucker. [122506]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I understand that an application for review of Nicholas Tucker's case was submitted to the Criminal Cases Review Commission in January 1999. The Commission has determined that the case will require an extensive review. Mr. Tucker has not presented any special factors that would justify giving his application priority, and it is therefore awaiting allocation to a caseworker, on the basis of date order of receipt. The Commission expects to begin the review within 12 months. The Commission will continue to communicate directly with Mr. Tucker or his representatives.

  Gammahydroxybutyrate
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects the Scientific Committee of the European Monitoring Centre on Drug and Drug Addiction to complete its formal risk assessment of the drug gammahydroxybutyrate. [122584]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Further to my replies to my hon. Friend on 10 May 2000,Official Report, column 405W, and to my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown) on 24 January 2000, Official Report, column 95W, I can report that the European Union Horizontal Drugs Working Group considered a report on gammahydroxybutyrate (GHB) from the European Monitoring Centre on Drugs and Drug Addition (EMCDDA) at its meeting on 12 April.
  371W
  The decision was taken at that meeting to refer GHB to the Scientific Committee of EMCDDA for a formal risk assessment under the Joint Action adopted by the Council of the European Union regarding the information exchange, risk assessment and control of new synthetic drugs. The risk assessment is expected to be completed by early to mid October.

  Rape
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects the Metropolitan police research initiative into drug-assisted rape to be concluded and a report published. [122585]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  This research into drug assisted sexual assault is sponsored by the Home Office through the Policing and Reducing Crime Unit under the Police Research Award Scheme.

  The research is complete and a launch by the Metropolitan Police Service is scheduled for 21 June 2000.

  Police Stations (Staffing)
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what(a) uniformed and (b) civilian staffing levels were in operation in each of the police stations within the Metropolitan Police Service Hillingdon Division for each shift on (i) 30 April, (ii) 1 May, (iii) 2 May and (iv) 3 May. [122823]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis tells me that uniform police officers on duty have responsibility for the whole borough and not specific stations. Furthermore, not all civil staff operate shifts. The information in the table, provided by the Commissioner, shows the number of uniform officers and civil staff deployed in Hillingdon Division for the period 30 April to 3 May:

  Inspector

  Sergeant

  Constable

  Civilian staff

  30 April

  Early turn

  1

  5

  18

  4

  Late turn

  1

  5

  22

  6

  Night duty

  1

  6

  26

  6

  1 May1

  Early turn

  1

  6

  30

  5

  Late turn

  1

  8

  38

  5

  Night duty

  1

  5

  30

  4

  2 May

  Early turn

  1

  6

  25

  5

  Late turn

  1

  7

  27

  4

  Night duty

  1

  6

  26

  3

  3 May

  Early turn

  1

  7

  25

  7

  Late turn

  1

  5

  24

  3

  Night duty

  1

  6

  26

  3

  1 The figures for 1 May include an additional shift brought on duty in response to central requriements to provide a reserve of aid, if needed, for the May Day demonstration. These were deployed for local policing in Hillingdon only.

  Prisoners (Medical Records)
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will ensure that when prisoners are transferred from one prison to another, their medical records are transferred at the same time. [123099]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Prison Service standard on health services for prisoners, issued on 5 October 1999, required establishments to have written and observed guidelines which set out the procedures for reception, transfer and discharge and include means of ensuring information on continuing care is conveyed to other establishments on transfer. The documentation required to achieve continuity of care is expected to include prisoners' health and treatment records.

  Immigration Services Commissioner
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the appointment of the Immigration Services Commissioner. [123519]

  Mr. Straw
  I am pleased to announce that Mr. John Scampion has agreed to serve as the Immigration Services Commissioner and Mrs. Linda Allan has agreed to serve as the Deputy Immigration Services Commissioner. Mr. Scampion will be appointed from 22 May and Mrs. Allan from 5 June. Mr. Scampion is currently the Social Fund Commissioner for Great Britain and Northern Ireland and a member of the Data Protection Tribunal. Mrs. Allan is a member of the Police Complaints Authority.

  Metropolitan Police (Special Constables)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many special constables there were in the Metropolitan police area on 1 May; and if he will make a statement. [121532]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis tells me there were 758 special constables serving with the Metropolitan police on 1 May.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South will receive a reply to his letter of 13 April to the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche), concerning Mrs. Alexandra Wieringa. [123067]

  Mrs. Roche
  Unfortunately, my hon. Friend's correspondence was not received in my Department. His office has now kindly provided a copy and I replied on 18 May.

  Police Terms and Conditions
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish the terms and conditions available to police officers of each rank from police constable to chief constable who have completed 30 years of service. [123107]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Police Regulations 1995 (as amended) set out terms and conditions of service for police officers of all ranks, regardless of length of service.
  373W
  The Police Pensions Regulations 1987 (as amended) set out the circumstances in which a regular policeman can retire with a policeman's ordinary pension.

  Officers below Association of Chief Police (ACPO) rank are entitled to retire on completion of 25 years' pensionable service if they give the police authority a month's written notice of the intention to retire—or such shorter notice as may be accepted by the authority.

  Officers of ACPO rank are entitled to retire on completion of 25 years' pensionable service if they have attained the age of 55 and give the police authority three months' written notice of the intention to retire; on completion of at least 25 years' pensionable service, regardless of age, if they are subject to a fixed term contract that is not, or cannot, be extended; or if the police authority otherwise decide to permit retirement before age 60. The full text of Regulation B1 of the Police Pensions Regulations 1987 (as amended) is as follows:
  An ordinary police pension is generally not payable until age 50 unless an officer has completed 30 years' pensionable service. Maximum pension benefits under the Police Pension Scheme are payable on completion of 30 years' pensionable service.

  Police (Early Retirements)
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many early retirements were granted by police authorities in each of the last four years. [123108]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Police officers are entitled to retire with an ordinary police pension on completion of 25 years' pensionable service, subject to certain conditions. However, most police officers choose to retire on completion of 30 years' pensionable service, as this is when maximum pension benefits are accrued.

  There are currently no provisions for early retirement from the police service with an actuarially reduced pension. However, officers may retire early on the ground that they are permanently disabled from performing the ordinary duties of a police officer and will receive an ill-health pension.

  Tables which contain information on ill-health retirements for civilian and non-civilian employees from each police authority for the last four years for which such information is available have been placed in the Library.

  Police Staff Numbers
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) police officers and (b) civilian staff there were in each Metropolitan Police division on the most recent date for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement.[123148]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The information requested is given in the table, provided by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis.

  Police officers and civil staff numbers as of end of April 2000

  Area/Divisions

  Police officers

  Civil staff

  Central

  City of Westmister and Chelsea

  1,556.79

  338.32

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  512.89

  135.32

  374W

  Police officers and civil staff numbers as of end of April 2000

  Area/Divisions

  Police officers

  Civil staff

  North

  Barking and Dagenham

  272.72

  72.96

  Barnet

  510.92

  140.04

  Brent

  565.08

  123.75

  Camden

  654.06

  159.19

  Ealing

  572.62

  137.88

  Enfield

  487.84

  136.37

  Hackney

  630.45

  152.43

  Haringey

  490.05

  139.10

  Harrow

  279.60

  68.15

  Havering

  313.68

  83.36

  Hillingdon

  359.50

  96.27

  Islington

  509.72

  147.43

  Newham

  577.28

  118.16

  Redbridge

  434.25

  120.14

  Tower Hamlets

  529.74

  120.15

  Waltham Forest

  441.61

  120.42

  South

  Bexley

  273.60

  66.07

  Bromley

  431.07

  103.15

  Croydon

  547.46

  157.29

  Greenwich

  608.92

  144.60

  Hounslow

  421.00

  116.34

  Kingston upon Thames

  251.40

  74.72

  Lambeth

  826.95

  221.18

  Lewisham

  562.78

  147.50

  Merton

  289.10

  79.93

  Richmond upon Thames

  276.13

  76.74

  Southwark

  816.24

  207.05

  Sutton

  308.24

  79.35

  Wandsworth

  573.59

  152.00

  Heathrow Airport

  304.83

  64.36

  Criminal Record Checks
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police forces failed to meet targets for processing criminal record checks under child protection targets in each of the last three years; how long checks took on average in each force in each year; and if he will make a statement. [123228]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Under arrangements agreed with the Home Office, police forces in England and Wales aim to reply to employers and other agencies within 10 days, unless inquiries need to be made of other forces—in which case the aim is to reply within three weeks. These targets are subject to the allocation of resources within each police force, which is the responsibility of the Chief Constable.

  Available information in relation to the average time taken by forces in England and Wales to carry out checks under the terms of Home Office Circular 47/1993 in the three years to 31 March 1999 was shown in the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) on 17 March 2000, Official Report, columns 371–74W.

  Arrangements in Scotland and Northern Ireland are a matter for the respective Secretaries of State.

  Police Numbers
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers there were per head of population in each police force and in
  375W
  total in (a) 1992, (b) 1997 and (c) on the latest date for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement.[123147]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The information requested is set out in the table in the form of population per police officer. The additional funds we are making available over the next two years to recruit 5,000 more officers over and above those that forces would otherwise have recruited should improve on the 1999 ratios.

  Population per police officer for 1992, 1997 and 1999

  Force

  As at 31 March 1992

  As at 31 March 1997

  As at 30 Septmeber 1999

  Avon and Somerset

  464

  491

  498

  Bedfordshire

  489

  502

  531

  Cambridgeshire

  536

  540

  566

  Cheshire

  516

  479

  481

  City of London

  5

  6

  7

  Cleveland

  378

  382

  405

  Cumbria

  416

  429

  451

  Derbyshire

  551

  537

  550

  Devon and Cornwall

  523

  538

  545

  Dorset

  514

  531

  542

  Durham

  435

  416

  391

  Dyfed-Powys

  496

  474

  457

  Essex

  510

  511

  541

  Gloucestershire

  459

  491

  507

  Greater Manchester

  363

  372

  378

  Gwent

  443

  447

  442

  Hampshire

  531

  508

  519

  Hertfordshire

  497

  491

  499

  Humberside

  431

  434

  458

  Kent

  501

  478

  484

  Lancashire

  440

  439

  443

  Leicestershire

  483

  476

  465

  Lincolnshire

  496

  515

  561

  Merseyside

  312

  336

  346

  Metropolitan Police

  259

  284

  297

  Norfolk

  537

  543

  572

  Northamptonshire

  507

  513

  545

  Northumbria

  414

  390

  375

  North Wales

  486

  479

  470

  North Yorkshire

  516

  549

  573

  Nottinghamshire

  436

  444

  463

  South Wales

  415

  414

  415

  South Yorkshire

  430

  413

  412

  Staffordshire

  481

  477

  481

  Suffolk

  544

  561

  578

  Surrey

  450

  479

  457

  Sussex

  479

  477

  515

  Thames Valley

  523

  559

  560

  Warwickshire

  495

  541

  553

  West Mercia

  540

  547

  574

  West Midlands

  377

  371

  360

  West Yorkshire

  406

  405

  434

  Wiltshire

  471

  514

  527

  Total for England and Wales

  406

  414

  426

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) police officers and (b) officers per head of population there were (i) per police force and (ii) in England and Wales on 31 March; and if he will make a statement.[123226]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) on 15 May 2000,Official Report, columns 59–60W.
  376W
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the change in the total number of police officers was in Hertfordshire between(a) 1992 and 1997 and (b) 1997 and the latest date for which figures are available, taking into account border changes with the Metropolitan police.[123154]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The change in the total number of police officers available for ordinary duty in Hertfordshire Constabulary between 31 March 1992 and 31 March 1997 was an increase of 64, from 1,695 to 1,759.

  The change from 31 March 1997 to 30 September 1999, the most recent date for which figures are available was an increase of one, from 1,759 to 1,760.

  The boundary changes for the Metropolitan Police District came into effect on 1 April 2000. The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis informs me that 182 police officers have been seconded from the Metropolitan Police Service to Hertfordshire Constabulary for periods of up to two years.

  The Commissioner also informs me that historical information on Metropolitan Police Divisional Staffing is unavailable.

  Right to Silence
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what research he has undertaken into the impact of the change to the right to silence made by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 on the number of convictions; and if he will make a statement.[123138]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Home Office Research Study 199, "The right of silence: the impact of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994", which was published in March 2000, examined the practical impact of the provisions on the interviewing of suspects at the police station and on proceedings in court. The report found a significant reduction in the extent to which suspects rely on silence when questioned by the police. The report concludes that conviction rates do not appear to have been affected, but the provisions may have introduced efficiencies in the investigation and prosecution process, with more productive interviews; greater scope for the investigation of accounts provided by suspects during interviews; and greater certainty of convictions where silence augments an already sound prosecution case. A copy has been placed in the Library.

  Young Offenders
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he is taking to ensure young offenders take greater responsibility for their behaviour. [121547]

  Mr. Boateng
  We have introduced the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999—which have led to the availability of reparation and action plan orders—and a range of new disposals aimed at early intervention in youth offending with a view to young people being challenged to face up to the consequences of their actions and make amends to their victims and the wider community.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  NIRS2
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioners are still waiting to receive their correct pension as a result of the problems with the NIRS2 computer system; and how much compensation has been paid to(a) pensioners and (b) pension companies as a result of these computer problems.[121037]

  Mr. Rooker
  The number of pension cases waiting to be reviewed is 128,000.

  As at 31 March 2000, £2,125,147 compensation has been paid to retirement pensioners because of the delayed implementation of NIRS2.

  Compensation to pension companies amounts to £44.3 million for scheme members owing to the late payment of their age-related rebates for the 1997–98 tax year. In addition, £52,215 has been paid for work they undertook to modify their IT systems so as to minimise the impact that incorrect payments of rebates generated by NIRS2 would have on their customers' investments.

  The Benefits Agency will complete its review of the Retirement Pension claims affected by the delayed implementation of NIRS2 by the end of this year.

  Benefit Payment Methods
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will place in the Library copies of communications sent to(a) new and current pensioners and (b) new and current recipients of child benefit concerning methods of payment of their benefits.[120343]

  Mr. Rooker
  The latest copies of the main communications to new and current pensioners and new and current Child Benefit recipients, concerning methods of payment of their benefits, have been placed in the Library.

  Stakeholder Pension
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security up to what level of income people will be eligible to hold a stakeholder pension concurrently with an occupational pension.[122591]

  Calls received by each DSS helpline since January 1999

  January 1999

  February 1999

  March 1999

  April 1999

  May 1999

  June 1999

  July 1999

  August 1999

  National Benefit Fraud Hotline

  13,925

  13,978

  16,901

  11,996

  11,303

  13,415

  10,491

  10,336

  CSA National Enquiry Line

  31,318

  57,365

  61,031

  45,461

  42,806

  50,616

  48,760

  46,819

  CSA's Client Helpline

  310,585

  252,286

  297,910

  297,033

  220,520

  253,321

  296,252

  222,542

  Benefit Enquiry Line

  102,110

  100,828

  125,991

  91,589

  95,850

  105,179

  87,424

  87,570

  Minimum Income Guarantee

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  War Pensions Helpline

  22,434

  22,452

  25,098

  27,698

  23,243

  25,713

  25,642

  25,810

  Winter Fuel Leaflet Order Line2

  130

  2—

  2—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  Winter Fuel Helpline

  115,478

  32,455

  7,789

  1,612

  —

  —

  —

  —

  New Deal for Lone Parents1

  10,228

  6,933

  3,265

  3,040

  1,616

  1,513

  1,027

  790

  Pensions-Info Lind1

  4,316

  3,891

  6,437

  4,443

  2,189

  1,908

  2,316

  2,405

  Mortgage Protection Line1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Welfare Reform Order Line1

  1,261

  519

  396

  221

  177

  162

  397

  200

  ONE/Single Work Focused Gateway

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Inherited SERPS Scheme(ISS)1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Customer Care Helpline

  328,038

  306,460

  346,968

  304,867

  286,934

  338,611

  329,600

  305,738

  DSS Public Enquiry Office

  8,312

  7,843

  9,144

  7,456

  5,635

  7,663

  7,599

  7,401

  Child Benefit Centre

  181,919

  158,268

  199,687

  170,717

  142,010

  172,603

  159,930

  180,725

  378W
  Mr. Rooker
  People will be able to hold both an occupational pension and a stakeholder pension. They will be able to contribute to both only when the occupational scheme is approved under the new defined contribution tax regime. Total contributions to defined contribution schemes will be subject to existing income related ceilings. We are still considering how concurrent contributions might be extended to other occupational schemes without introducing unnecessary complexity or excessive cost.

  Guillain-Barré Syndrome
  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the training needs of examining medical practitioners and adjudicating officers in the Disability Benefits Unit of the Benefits Agency in relation to Guillain Barré syndrome.[122915]

  Mr. Bayley
  The training of examining medical practitioners and decision makers for Disability Living Allowance concentrates on explaining disability in functional terms and in particular on the assessment of individual care and mobility needs, rather than being focused on particular diagnoses. The whole of the examining medical practitioner training is currently being reviewed and any revised package will cover the disabling effects likely to arise from conditions such as Guillain-Barré Syndrome. In addition, both examining medical practitioners and decision makers have access to the Disability Handbook. This is written by the Department's Medical Policy Group and contains guidance on the care and mobility needs likely to arise from a range of medical conditions. It contains a specific section on Guillain-Barré syndrome which sets out the level and range of needs likely to arise in people with this disease.

  Helplines
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many calls have been received by each telephone helpline administered by his Department in each month since January 1999; and what the salary levels are for those who work on each helpline.[121059]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information is in the table.
  379W

  Calls received by each DSS helpline since January 1999

  September 1999

  October 1999

  November 1999

  December 1999

  January 2000

  February 2000

  March 2000

  April 2000

  National Benefit Fraud Hotline

  12,971

  9,291

  14,683

  10,906

  14,272

  19,285

  23,118

  12,815

  CSA National Enquiry Line

  59,179

  60,495

  64,699

  44,551

  54,125

  47,438

  71,496

  58,683

  CSA's Client Helpline

  614,752

  297,051

  236,684

  219,426

  379,380

  227,792

  265,945

  161,329

  Benefit Enquiry Line

  103,598

  90,064

  89,344

  75,286

  91,586

  92,406

  118,167

  87,979

  Minimum Income Guarantee

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  11,632

  17,420

  War Pensions Helpline

  32,063

  26,152

  30,882

  20,154

  27,592

  28,227

  31,755

  25,510

  Winter Fuel Leaflet Order Line1

  2,897

  2,509

  933

  280

  54

  42

  28

  0

  Winter Fuel Helpline

  7,897

  15,217

  130,586

  103,390

  73,657

  39,272

  29,937

  —

  New Deal for Lone Parents1

  1,597

  8,131

  3,421

  1,434

  7,929

  7,467

  8,057

  3,842

  Pensions-Info Line1

  1,843

  2,393

  1,728

  1,338

  2,853

  5,721

  15,301

  10,759

  Mortgage Protection Line1

  91

  82

  1,339

  166

  106

  89

  49

  44

  Welfare Reform Order Line1

  350

  763

  1,117

  330

  258

  459

  360

  283

  ONE/Single Work Focused Gateway

  1,133

  1,294

  1,048

  562

  221

  770

  695

  n/a

  Inherited SERPS Scheme(ISS)1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  10,005

  2,026

  Customer Care Helpline

  307,004

  314,214

  319,972

  283,507

  352,558

  371,762

  448,711

  314,462

  DSS Public Enquiry Office

  8,107

  6,887

  7,555

  4,996

  11,283

  11,597

  10,472

  8,584

  Child Benefit Centre

  163,366

  158,848

  185,895

  124,772

  174,309

  185,557

  197,469

  147,990

  1Means these helplines are run on our behalf by commercial response lines. Their salary levels are Commercial in Confidence.

  2Included in January figure.

  3Closed.

  Average salaries for those run by the department (between the minimum and maximum paybands)

  £

  Benefits Agency

  Child Support agency

  War Pensions Agency

  A1

  10,789

  9,925

  —

  A4

  15,053

  12,375

  12,701

  B3

  21,248

  16,500

  16,841

  C3

  26,414

  21,124

  —

  C4

  —

  25,850

  —

  Information is given on additional helplines to that given in my reply to the hon. Member on 4 April 2000, Official Report, column 626W. That reply was given on a narrower definition of the term "helpline". This one has been expanded to include information on, for example, leaflet ordering lines.
  Background Detail on Helplines and Teleservices
  National Benefit Fraud Hotline—0800 854440
  A confidential telephone service for people who wish to report suspected cases of benefit fraud.
  CSA National Enquiry Line (CSA NEL)x2014;0845 7133133
  The main function of the National Enquiry Line is to deal with general inquiries about child support matters.

  The CSA's Client Helplines

  Belfast: 0845 7 132000

  Birkenhead: 0845 7 138000

  Dudley: 0845 7 131000

  Falkirk: 0845 7 136000

  Hastings: 0845 7 134000

  Plymouth: 0845 7 137000

  Helplines are operated by each of the six Business Units in the Child Support Agency, in order to deal with a range of inquiries, particularly those from clients who wish to talk about their case.Minimum Income Guarantee Helpline—0800 0281111
  A Freephone line where pensioners can request a claim form and information about MIG, and from 30 May pensioners can have a claim form completed on their behalf.Benefit Enquiry Line (BEL)—0800 882200
  BEL is a national telephone helpline providing free and confidential advice on all Social Security Benefits to people with disabilities, their carers and representatives.380W War Pensions Helpline—01253 858858
  A helpline giving general help and advice to existing war pensioners and war widows; to anyone wishing to claim a war disablement or war widows' pension; and to ex-service organisations.Winter Fuel Payments Leaflet Order Linex2014;0845 91515151
  A response line for people wishing to order leaflets containing information on winter fuel payments.Winter Fuel Payments Helpline—0845 915 1515
  A helpline for people who want to ask questions about the Winter Fuel Payments scheme.
  1The number is the same New Deal for Lone Parents—0800 783 9873
  A helpline for people wishing to get information on the New Deal for Lone Parents and for lone parents who want to join the scheme.Pensions Info-Linex2014;0345 313 232
  This is a telephone orderline that people can call to order copies of DSS information leaflets on pensions and other relevant information.Mortgage Protection Line—0870 600 6990
  An order line for people who want copies of the leaflet 'Protecting Your Mortgage'.Welfare Reform Order Line—020 8867 3201
  This is a telephone order line that people can call to order copies of DSS information leaflets and reports on Welfare reform and other DSS issues.The Inherited SERPS Scheme Helpline—0845 600 6116
  The ISS was announced by Secretary of State on 15 March 2000. A telephone helpline was set up on the same day. The helpline provides answers to a range of questions on the announcement and gives the option of registering to receive a claim form when the scheme has started.Customer Care Helpline—0845 712 3456
  The Customer Care Helpline is a telephone service offered to Disability Living Allowance or Attendance Allowance customers/ beneficiaries and their representatives. In addition to giving

  381W
  information about the progress of any claim, explaining decisions etc for those benefits, it accepts certain changes of circumstances over the telephone.Public Enquiry Office—0207 712 2171
  A national unit dealing with policy related inquiries for the Department, acting as a first stop service, passing callers on to relevant officials as appropriate. It also acts as a first point of contact for more general inquiries relating to more general matters.Child Benefit Centre—0541 555540 and 0541 555501
  The Child Benefit Centre has a centralised teleservice. This is a service provided to customers who wish to report any changes of circumstances without the need to make their report in writing. It is aimed at dealing with as many calls as possible, at the point of contact.

  Pension Schemes
  Mr. Portillo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many new personal pension schemes were set up in each year from 1979 to 1999.[122356]

  (2) how many new occupational pension schemes were set up in each year from 1979 to 1996.[122355]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information is in the table.

  Year

  Occupational pension schemes

  Personal pension schemes

  1979

  4,764

  0

  1980

  4,671

  0

  1981

  4,618

  0

  1982

  5,705

  0

  1983

  6,743

  0

  1984

  8,606

  0

  1985

  10,945

  0

  1986

  11,009

  0

  1987

  12,394

  0

  1988

  22,162

  161

  1989

  11,469

  32

  1990

  7,779

  13

  1991

  11,112

  22

  1992

  8,104

  12

  1993

  6,583

  4

  1994

  7,501

  2

  1995

  6,578

  7

  1996

  8,311

  16

  1997

  6,133

  15

  1998

  4,939

  21

  1999

  3,170

  11

  Total

  173,296

  316

  Notes:

  1. Scheme numbers are only part of the picture. More importantly, around 60 per cent. of employees currently have some form of non-state pension, either an occupational pension or a personal pension. In due course, numbers of people with non-state pensions should increase once stakeholder pensions are launched.

  2. Personal pension schemes were introduced in 1988.

  Source:

  Pension Schemes Registry

  Minimum Income Guarantee
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the expenditure on administration costs for the minimum income guarantee for 2000–01(a) in total and (b) per recipient.[123258]

  Mr. Bayley
  The total estimated expenditure on administration costs for the minimum income guarantee for 2000–01 is £4 million.
  382W
  Details on administrative costings can be found in the Departmental Report. A copy has been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if, for the minimum income guarantee take-up campaign, he will estimate(a) the total administration cost to date (b) the number of pensioners that have so far responded and (c) the number of respondents that were found to be eligible.[123257]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information requested is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is as follows.

  The total administrative costs, to the end of April, for the project team and Teleclaims service is £1,120,369. To date the minimum income guarantee (MIG) claimline has received over 32,000 calls and from these calls over 19,000 claim packs have been issued. Current provisions allow for a claim to be submitted within one month from the initial date of contact so we are unable to specify, at this stage, how many eligible respondents have been found. The MIG campaign will be launched on 30 May. The above information does not include the costs of the proposed advertising campaign.

  Pension Rights
  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he plans to bring into effect those parts of the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act that will protect tax-approved pension rights when a person is made bankrupt.[123520]

  Mr. Rooker
  The relevant sections will come into effect from 29 May 2000.

  From that date, most tax-approved occupational pension rights and personal pension rights will be protected on bankruptcy.

  Small Businesses (Benefit Payments)
  Mr. Pollard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the extent of increased administrative costs imposed on small businesses by the processing of state benefits through the payroll.[122358]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I have been asked to reply.

  Having confirmed that my hon. Friend is referring to tax credits rather than to state benefits, I refer him to the regulatory impact assessment which was published and placed in the House Library in December 1999.

WALES

  Opinion Research
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much his Department spent on opinion research in the financial year 1999–2000.[123122]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The Wales Office has commissioned no opinion research since it was established on 1 July 1999. Welsh Office expenditure prior to that date cannot ben separately identified.
  383W
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the opinion research projects undertaken on behalf of his Department in the financial year 1999–2000, itemising(a) focus group research, (b) quantitative surveys and (c) other surveys, in each case indicating when and where the results were published.[123123]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The Wales Office has commissioned no opinion research since it was established on 1 July 1999. Prior to that date, the following projects were undertaken on behalf of the Welsh Office:

  (a) Focus Group Research—Nil

  (b) Quantitative Surveys—Nil

  (c) Other Surveys

  Subject

  Publication of results

  Date of publication

  Effectiveness of information campaign to raise public awareness of the National Assembly and its voting system

  Published on National Assembly for Wales website

  November 1999

  Evaluation of Strategic Prevention Action Plan for Drugs and Alcohol in Wales

  Not published, but details made available to respondents

  n/a

TREASURY

  National Insurance
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many people are in contracted out money purchase pension schemes that are owed backdated national insurance contribution rebates; [119941]

  (2) how much money is owed in backdated national insurance contribution rebates to contracted out money purchase pension schemes; and what arrangements have been made to make these backdated payments. [119942]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answers 20 May 2000]: There are approximately 280,000 people awaiting rebates for the 1997–98 and the 1998–99 tax years. About £140 million of rebates remain to be paid. Rebates are outstanding because of problems with the NIRS2 system and errors in end of year returns. Inland Revenue's National Insurance Contributions Office is working closely with its IT suppliers to resolve outstanding difficulties with the NIRS2 system. They are also liaising with Scheme Administrators and employers to correct errors in end of year returns.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people paid(a) only class II National Insurance Contributions and (b) class II in addition to other National Insurance Contributions in each of the last 10 years; what revenue the Government received from class II National Insurance Contributions in each of these years; and if he will make a statement. [122521]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The number of people who paid National Insurance Contributions (NICs) in tax years 1978–79 to 1995–96, by type of contribution are shown 384W
  in table 11 of the DSS publication "Contributions and Qualifying Years for Retirement Pension 1995–96 volume 2", a copy of which is available in the Library of the House. Consistent data for 1996–97 are shown in the table.

  Number of people—Great Britain

  Thousand

  Type of contribution: men and women

  1996–97

  Class 1 and class 2

  352

  Class 2 only

  2,049

  Combinations of class 1, 2 or 3

  10

  This information is based on the DSS Lifetime Labour Market Database (LLMDB) which uses a 1 per cent. sample of National Insurance records. I regret that the LLMDB does not collect information about class 4 and an analysis including class 4 would be available only at disproportionate cost.

  However, in general terms, around three-quarters of those with a class 2 liability have profits greater than the lower profits limit and therefore should pay some class 4 contributions. This estimate is based on the Inland Revenue's Survey of Personal Incomes.

  Class 2 contribution receipts for the years available are shown in the table:

  £ million, at 1999–2000 prices1

  Year

  Class 2 receipts for Great Britain

  1990–91

  660

  1991–92

  650

  1992–93

  680

  1993–94

  760

  1994–95

  760

  1995–96

  760

  1996–97

  770

  1Using GDP deflator at market prices

  Children's Tax Credit
  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the(a) forecast cost of introducing the children's tax credit and (b) projected number of claimants. [122612]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 18 May 2000]: I refer my hon. Friend to tables A.13 and A2.1 of the "Financial Statement and Budget Report" 2000.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South will receive a reply to his letter of 14 April, concerning Mrs. Gillian McCubbin. [123068]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I wrote to my hon. Friend on 16 May.

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the average cost per week, per recipient, of the Working Family Tax Credit, to the Inland Revenue in administration. [122575]
  385W
  Dawn Primarolo
  During the six months to March 2000, the average Inland Revenue cost per recipient of administering the Working Families Tax Credit (and the remaining Family Credit awards) was £1.61 per week.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Calf Exports
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the Government's policy on the export of calves. [119582]

  Ms Quin
  The UK is currently banned from exporting calves. Despite the progress that we have made with the lifting of the beef export ban, it is unlikely that the European Commission will propose the removal of the ban on live cattle exports in the near future. We are, however, working with the NFU to explore possibilities such as opportunities for high welfare standard veal exports as an alternative outlet for dairy calves.

  Badger Culling
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if his Department applied for a Home Office licence under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 for its recent badger culling experiment; and if he will make a statement. [120777]

  Ms Quin
  The Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, which regulates animal experiments, only applies where animals are killed in establishments specifically designated under the Act. It does not apply to the badger culling trial.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will answer the Question tabled by the hon. Member for Tewkesbury on 17 January (Ref. 105197). [120923]

  Ms Quin
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer given to him on 18 May 2000,Official Report, column 269W.

  GM Crops
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will list, in relation to those who have submitted to him a request to be heard orally in respect of the proposed decision to add the genetically modified maize variety Chardon LL to the UK National List, each of the locations in the UK where such hearings have been requested, and the numbers requesting hearings at each such location; [121447]

  (2) if he will break down by region the representations and requests for oral hearings he has received on the proposed decision to add the genetically modified maize variety Chardon LL to the UK National List, indicating how many have (a) objected to and (b) supported the proposed decision. [121449]

  Ms Quin
  The information requested is set out in the table. To date, 227 individuals/organisations have submitted written representations, of which 63 have also requested to be heard by a person appointed by Ministers.386W
  A further four request for a hearing have been received where no written representaion have been made Of the 227 written representations four supported the proposed decision and the remainder objected. Of the 67 requests for a hearing, one supported the proposed decision and the remainder objected.

  Summary of written representations and requests to he heard

  Written representations

  Requests to be heard

  England

  Avon

  4

  2

  Bedfordshire

  4

  1

  Berkshire

  3

  —

  Buckinghamshire

  6

  2

  Cambridgeshire

  12

  1

  Cheshire

  4

  1

  Cornwall

  4

  1

  Cumbria

  3

  —

  Derbyshire

  4

  1

  Devon

  12

  4

  Dorset

  2

  —

  Durham

  1

  1

  Essex

  8

  3

  Gloucestershire

  4

  1

  Hampshire

  8

  —

  Herefordshire

  3

  2

  Hertfordshire

  6

  3

  Isle of Wight

  9

  —

  Kent

  5

  3

  Lancashire

  16

  3

  Leicestershire

  4

  1

  London

  23

  8

  Middlesex

  3

  1

  Norfolk

  2

  1

  Northamptonshire

  2

  1

  Nottinghamshire

  2

  2

  Oxfordshire

  8

  4

  Shropshire

  2

  1

  Somerset

  6

  2

  Staffordshire

  1

  —

  Suffolk

  4

  1

  Surrey

  6

  2

  Sussex

  2

  2

  Wiltshire

  5

  3

  Worcestershire

  1

  —

  Yorkshire

  17

  1

  Total for England

  206

  59

  Northern Ireland

  Belfast

  1

  1

  County Antrim

  1

  1

  County Londonderry

  1

  —

  Total for Northern Ireland

  3

  2

  Scotland

  Borders

  2

  —

  Edinburgh and Lothians

  6

  2

  Glasgow

  2

  1

  Total for Scotland

  10

  3

  Wales

  Camarthenshire

  3

  1

  South Glamorgan

  3

  1

  North Wales

  1

  —

  Pembrokeshire

  1

  1

  Total for Wales

  8

  3

  Overall total

  227

  67

  Action Plan for Farming (Budget)
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list, for each UK-funded component of the Government's £203.5 million Action Plan for Farming, the departmental budget concerned. [121425]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 9 May 2000]: The departmental budgets concerned with each UK-funded component of the Government's Action Plan for Farming are listed:

  Action plan for farming (8 May 2000)

  Measure

  Value

  Departmental budget1

  Introduce a scheme to encourage the restructuring of the pig industry in order to improve its long-term viability

  £26 million (in 2000–01)

  MAFF

  Pay to dairy farmers all the agrimonetary aid that EU rules permit this year only

  £11 million (in 2000–01)

  IB

  Increase support for hill farmers beyond the level specified in the rural development plans submitted to the Commission

  £60 million (in 2000–01)

  MAFF—£15.3 million SE—£21.5 million NAW—£14.7 million DARD—£8.5 million

  Seek from the Commission an increase in the maximum weight per animal on which compensation is payable under the Over-Thirty-Months Scheme

  £20 million (estimate) (in 2000–01, based on euro rate of 0.64)

  MAFF—£13.3 million SE—£2.3 million NAW—£2.1 million DARD—£1.8 million (total estimate revised to £19.5 million based on euro rate of 0.6)

  Remove charges for dairy hygiene inspections in England as soon as thenecessary legislation can be put in place

  £1 million (in 2000–01)

  FSA

  Hold the increase in meat inspection charges for 2000–01 to the rate of inflation

  £4.5 million (in 2000–01)

  FSA

  Increase the rate of grant under MAFF's Farm Waste Grant Scheme from 25 per cent. of eligible expenditure (under which uptake has been low) to 40 per cent.

  £3.5 million (in 2001–02)

  MAFF

  The Government will double the Regional Development Agencies' Redundant Building Grant Programme, which operates in Rural Priority Areas, to £8 million in 2000–01

  £4 million (in 2000–01)

  DETR

  The Government will allocate £2.3 million to create in England a

  £2.3 million (over 2 years: £0.3 million in 2000–01 and £1.961

  MAFF

  388W

  Action plan for farming (8 May 2000)

  Measure

  Value

  Departmental budget1

  European Centre for organic fruit and nursery stock

  in 2001–02)

  A singe charge for authorisation to dispose of used sheep dip, equivalent to the current application charge of £85, should cover the full four-year period of the initial authorisation. This means that the current annual charge of £107 will not be payable during the firat four-year period

  £4.7 million over 4 years (from 2000–01)

  DETR/NAW

  Business Restructuring in England:

  The Government will pump-prime the drive to improve the competitiveness of farmers by providing funding for business improvement, on a challenge basis, following the model of the Agricultural Development Scheme 1999

  £1 million (in 2000–01)

  MAFF

  The Government will provide funding of £1.2 million to Lantra (National Training Organisation for the Landbased Sector) to promote the economic benefits of training and to analyse the training needs of 20,000 farm businesses

  £1.2 million (in 2000–01)

  MAFF

  The Government will help farmers develop better business practices through tailored business advice, As framers increasingly diversify their business, they will be able to draw and the wider expertise and services of the Small Business Sercice

  £6.5 million (in 2000–01)

  MAFF/DTI (to be determined)

  The Government will continue to support the Rural Stress Iinformation network by extending for at least a further year the secondment of a MAFF official to that organisation. MAFF will also increase the provision of free advice to those farmers referred to it by certain organisations. The Government will increase their support to voluntary bodies dealing with rural

  £0.5 million (in 2000–01)

  MAFF

  389W

  Action plan for farming (8 May 2000)

  Measure

  Value

  Departmental budget1

  stress on the basis of an action plan they will draw up with them by June

  Launch an electronic portal for farming

  £0.4 million (in 2000–01)

  MAFF

  Business restructuring aid for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—this is the responsibility of the devolved administrations and Northern Ireland

  £2 million (in 2000–01)

  SE, NAW, DARD (allocated separately)

  1MAFF—Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food

  IB—Intervention Board

  SE—Scottish Executive

  NAW—National Assembly for Wales

  DARD—Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (Northern Ireland)

  FSA—Food Standards Agency

  DTI—Department of Trade and Industry

  DETR—Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions

  Pig Industry
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will take measures to ensure that the £26 million package for United Kingdom pig farmers, aimed at restructuring the industry, will enable UK pig farmers to retain their export capacity. [121768]

  Ms Quin
  The ongoers element of the Pig Industry Restructuring Scheme is aimed at those pig farmers who wish to remain in pig production and want to restructure their business to make it viable in the longer term. Export demand for pigmeat is determined by a number of factors but the nature of the domestic market is such that we would expect the UK to continue as a significant exporter of fresh and frozen pork.

  Penalty Clauses
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the contracts entered into with private sector companies for the provision of goods or services since May 1997 where penalty clauses were triggered for non-performance; and if he will make a statement. [122024]

  Mr. Morley
  Penalty clauses are unenforceable under the law of contract, and contracts let by core-MAFF and its Agencies do not contain them. Contracts let by the Ministry do, where appropriate, contain contractual provisions setting out remedies for non-performance of contractual obligations by contractors but these are enforced only when contract management and disputes resolution procedures have been exhausted.

  Fisheries
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 3 May 2000,Official Report, column 142W, on fisheries, what is the required procedure for maintaining (a) the
  390W
  national fisheries quota system based upon the existing relative stability and (b) restrictions upon access within national six and 12 mile limits beyond 2002. [122742]

  Mr. Morley
  Article 14(2) of Council Regulation 3760/92 requires the Council to decide by 31 December 2002, on the basis of a Commission report to the Council and the European Parliament and in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 43 (now 37) of the Treaty (which requires a qualified majority in favour of a Commission proposal and consultation with the European Parliament):on the provisions to follow the access restrictions within national six and 12 mile limits which, in accordance with Article 6 of the Regulation, expire on 31 December 2002;
  on any necessary adjustments to be made to other provisions of the Regulation, including those concerning the national quota system based on relative stability: if no such adjustments are made, existing arrangements will continue unchanged beyond 2002.

  As indicated in my reply to the hon. Member of 3 May, the Government are confident that both these provisions will be retained beyond 2002.

  Arable Area Payments Scheme
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what percentage of croppable land in Britain is eligible for the arable area payments scheme; and what the figures are for other EU states. [123020]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  MAFF June census data show the total UK agricultural area in 1999 as 18.6 million hectares. Of this, roughly 35 per cent. meets the equivalent of the 1991 definition used to determine eligibility under the arable area payments scheme. About a further 30 per cent. is shown as grass five or more years old, which would represent the most obviously croppable part of the balance. Taking these two areas together would give a figure of around 55 per cent. as the amount of croppable land which would be eligible. But this can only be a rough approximation, because there is neither an agreed definition of croppable nor an absolute total for eligible land, as eligibility is only assessed when actual claims are made.

  We have no figures for land eligible for arable area payments in other member states.

  Uninhabitable Dwellings
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the economic impact on farmers of the decision to limit the exemption from council tax on uninhabitable dwellings; and what studies his Department has made of that impact. [122997]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State on 5 May 2000,Official Report, column 242W.

  Press Officers
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many press officers there were in his Department in(a) May 1997 and (b) May 2000. [122995]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  The number of press officers in my Department in May 1997 was 10; and in May 2000, there are 10.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Opinion Research
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how much the Lord Chancellor's Department spent on opinion research in the financial year 1999–2000 [123253]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Lord Chancellor's Department spent a total of £224,794 on opinion survey research in the financial year 1999–2000. The figure comprises the costs of 12 items of research, all of which relate to the Department's role as a service provider, to new initiatives such as the Community Legal Service or to areas of policy interest.

  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list opinion research projects undertaken on behalf of the Lord Chancellor's Department in the financial year 1999–2000 itemising(a) focus group research, (b) quantitative surveys and (c) other market research surveys and in each case stating when and where the results were published. [123254]

  Jane Kennedy
  The list of opinion research items undertaken by the Lord Chancellor's Department during the financial year 1999–2000 is as follows. All the research listed relates to Departmental initiatives; areas of policy interest; or client satisfaction research required for Business Plans or Chartermark controls.
  LCD Opinion Research Items 1999–2000 Focus Group Research
  Two Market Research Projects—Community Legal service
  Commissioned through the Central Office of Information in connection with the development and introduction of the Community Legal Service. Both projects—Strategy Development Research; and CLS Quality Mark & Brand Identity evaluation—included focus group research. This research was part of the development of the Community Legal Service and was not published.
  Research Project: New Public Management & the Administration of Justice in Magistrates' Courts
  Research to describe, analyse and evaluate changes to the Magistrates' Courts Service brought about by the Police and the Magistrates' Courts Act 1994, and the Justices of the Peace Act 1997. It includes six focus group studies of members of Court Users Committees and core user groups. This project is still underway. Consideration about publication will be given on receipt of the final report, which is likely to be in the autumn.392W Quantitative Surveys
  Quality of Service (User Reaction) Survey
  Survey of customer perceptions using data gathered by way of a questionnaire distributed to Magistrates' Courts users. Processing of the data was completed in-house and the results released in Information Bulletins.
  Office for National Statistics Omnibus Module: Legal Problems
  The Department included three questions on the extent of civil legal problems, the seriousness of particular types of problems and people's experiences in seeking legal advice in the Office for National Statistics Omnibus Module. It is expected that the results will be published this year. They will be placed in the data archive at the University of Essex.
  Customer Service Surveys
  The Court Service has carried out local customer satisfaction surveys every two years in Crown Court centres, the Crown Office, the Criminal Appeal Office, county courts and tribunals by the Court Service since 1998. Each survey is undertaken in-house on a local basis with no external costs. The results are published in the public area of the local court.
  Juror Satisfaction Pilot Survey
  Recently serving jurors have been asked about their level of satisfaction with their treatment in the criminal justice system. The results were used to set a target for this area within the new Criminal Justice System Business Plan.Other Market Research Surveys
  Market Research: Provision of Information Meetings
  A study has been completed by KPMG in order to assess potential interest in the private sector in the provision of information meetings under Part II of the Family Law Act 1996. It is not intended that this report will be published.
  Research Project: Alternative Dispute Resolution in Commercial Cases
  A study has been commissioned to assess the impact of Commercial Court ADR orders on the outcome of cases in which they are made; and the influence of the emphasis of ADR in the Commercial Court on the conduct of commercial litigation. It includes interviews (personal or telephone) with private practice practitioners, in-house lawyers and parties. Publication of the report of the research is expected this year.
  Research Project: Factors Affecting the Decision to Apply for Silk and Judicial Office
  A study has been commissioned to identify the factors which encourage or deter applicants from under-represented groups to apply for appointment as Queen's Counsel and judicial office. It is based on questionnaires and interviews with applicants and potential applicants. Publication of the report of the research is expected this year.
  Research Project: Identifying Thresholds—Arrangements for Contact in the Context of Domestic Violence and Child Welfare Concerns
  This research is based on two sets of interviews. The first is with professionals to identify whether and how they draw distinctions between different forms of contact. The second set is with children and adults who have had a range of contact experiences in order to identify their expectations and satisfaction with arrangements. It will also investigate users' views on the way contact provisions could develop. This project is underway and consideration on publication will be given on receipt of final report in 2001.
  Research Project: Monitoring the Rise in the Small Claims Limit
  A study to provide follow-on information from the earlier research, published in 1997, on the small claims court. This research involves interviews with litigants. The project is underway and consideration on publication will be given on receipt of final report in 2002.

  Coroner Inquiries
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department for what reasons the coroner has not opened an inquest into the death of Sam Marshall in 1990. [121864]
  393W
  Mr. Lock
  The holding and listing of inquests is a matter for judicial discretion of the coroner for the district in which a person has died. I understand that the coroner was in correspondence with the deceased's relatives' solicitor, Mrs. Rosemary Nelson, in relation to an inquest into Mr. Marshall's death. Mrs. Nelson was tragically killed on 15 March 1999. The coroner has only recently been contacted by the solicitor now representing the deceased's family and would intend to liaise with her in relation to the holding of an inquest.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (1) how many politically motivated or violent deaths have been the subject of a coroner's inquiry in each of the past 15 years; what was the verdict in each such case; and how much time elapsed between death and completion of the coroner's inquiry in each case; [121865]

  (2) in how many cases of (a) politically motivated and (b) violent death a coroner's inquiry had not opened a year after that death in the last 10 years; [121866]

  (3) if he will set out, for the last 10 years, the number of (a) politically motivated and (b) violent deaths subject to a coroner's inquiry and the time taken to complete each stage of the inquiry process prior to a final verdict in respect of such deaths. [121867]

  Mr. Lock
  General statistics are available in relation to deaths in Northern Ireland. I am informed by the General Register Office for Northern Ireland that figures in relation to deaths registered in the last 15 years where the cause of death has been due to injury or poisoning (coded E800-E999) and homicide and injury inflicted by other persons (coded E960-E969) are available. These figures are detailed in the table. However, the specific information requested by my hon. Friend in relation to politically motivated deaths is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Year

  E800–E999

  E960–E969

  1998

  569

  36

  1997

  593

  24

  1996

  598

  40

  1995

  663

  113

  1994

  688

  100

  1993

  639

  90

  1992

  581

  75

  1991

  719

  76

  1990

  699

  69

  1989

  693

  104

  1988

  834

  108

  1987

  762

  90

  1986

  730

  54

  1985

  746

  58

  394W

  Year

  E800–E999

  E960–E969

  1984

  739

  82

  Tax Appeal Tribunals
  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many ex parte hearings at tax appeal tribunal level there have been in each of the last five years. [122721]

  Jane Kennedy
  Ex parte hearings are applications from the Inland Revenue for Consent to issue a notice requiring the production of documents or information. The application is made to a single commissioner of income tax, and is not considered to be a part of the appeals meeting. The number of these applications is not reported separately from the meeting statistics.

  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many tax appeal tribunals have been held in each year following the introduction of self-assessment [122722]

  Jane Kennedy
  Self-assessment was introduced with effect from 6 April 1996 and applied to returns for the 1996–97 tax year. The time limit for these returns to be set to the Inland Revenue was 1 January 1998. While information on the number of tax appeal tribunal hearings is not available, the number of appeals decided in 1998 by the General Commissioners of Income Tax are 95,073.

  The cases heard by the Special Commissioners of Income Tax are 92.

  Figures for 1999 will be available in July.

  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many tax appeal tribunals were held in each of the three years before the introduction of self-assessment. [122723]

  Jane Kennedy
  Self-assessment returns were introduced with effect from 6 April 1996, with the first returns being issued after 5 April 1997. The time limit for these returns to be sent to the Inland Revenue was 31 January 1998. While information on the number of tax appeal tribunal hearings is not available, the figures for decisions to 31 December in each year are:

  General commissioners of income tax

  Special commissioners of income tax

  1995

  215,000

  50

  1996

  241,472

  84

  1997

  208,824

  83

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

Lord Bernstein of Craigweil
Alexander Bernstein, Esquire, having been created Baron Bernstein of Craigweil, of Craigweil in the County of West Sussex, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Levy and the Lord Puttnam.
Baroness Andrews
Elizabeth Kay Andrews, OBE, having been created Baroness Andrews, of Southover in the County of East Sussex, for life—Was, in her robes, introduced between the Lord Ashley of Stoke and the Lord Dubs.

Elderly Patients: Standards of Care
2.48 p.m.
Lord Morris of Manchesterasked Her Majesty's Government:
When they expect the National Health Service Executive and the General Medical Council to complete their investigations into Dr Rita Pal's dossier of cases of abuse of elderly patients in National Health Service hospitals overdosed with diamorphine.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, these allegations necessitate the tracing of patients' notes in order to verify the claims made by Dr Pal. Although this may take some months to complete, I can assure my noble friend that these allegations are being dealt with very seriously.
Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. Is he aware that, while they are deeply shocking, Dr Pal's eye-witness accounts of the killing of elderly patients in NHS hospitals by overdosing them with diamorphine, a class-A drug more commonly known as heroin, are not the only, nor even the most easily corroborated, cases of patients being so abused for the stated purpose of easing the bed shortage? When does he expect to see the reports of the two investigations? And can we be assured that, if tough action is called for to bring to account those responsible, then tough action there will be?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I wish to make it clear to the House that these are allegations and stand to he investigated by the GMC. I cannot
468
give my noble friend a date for the conclusion of those investigations for the reason mentioned in my first Answer, but I can assure him and the House that the Government are committed to the highest possible standards of care in the NHS for older people. That is why we have established a national service framework, which will report later in the year.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, does the Minister agree that allegations such as these demonstrate the need to have proper statutory protection for older people and that the national service framework, which will be purely voluntary, will be inadequate to protect those older people?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: No, my Lords, I do not agree with that. These are allegations. We have to be very cautious before we make statements alleging that these things are happening until the facts have been thoroughly investigated. National service frameworks are an essential component of ensuring high-quality care in the future. We are committed not just to developing national service frameworks but to ensuring that they are published and agreeing that they will be implemented.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, is it not the case that it is not only in National Health Service hospitals that elderly patients are alleged to have been murdered by diamorphine injection? Is it not the case that the police are pursuing a number of allegations of this kind? Do the GMC and the NHS Executive involve themselves with research outside NHS hospitals or is that the responsibility solely of the police?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the GMC is concerned with the professional competence of individual doctors. The Department of Health and the NHS Executive are directly concerned with the performance of the National Health Service. If the noble Baroness is referring to care homes, the Care Standards Bill, which has already passed through your Lordships' House, is designed to ensure a high and consistent standard of inspection, including issues to do with the quality of treatment provided in those establishments.
The Lord Bishop of Hereford: My Lords, can the Minister assure the House that, whatever the outcome of these investigations and whatever measures may need to be taken to prevent the abuse of diamorphine in elderly patients, nothing will be done to prejudice or-compromise the proper and generous administration of diamorphine in the treatment of terminally ill patients? There is a need to spread the good practices of the hospice movement more widely among the medical profession.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the point made by the right reverend Prelate is particularly apposite. Diamorphine is a drug that is legitimately used to treat those who are terminally ill. It is

469
important that we adopt a measured approach to what sometimes can be very scurrilous allegations. In the end, the procedures we are putting in place—in particular as regards the development of the national service framework—will ensure that we achieve a consistent and high quality service for older people. It is important that we await the results of the GMC investigation into this matter before we become too embroiled in allegations which, to be frank, are not proven.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, following on from the intervention of the right reverend Prelate, with which I wholeheartedly agree, can the Minister say whether he will ask the National Institute for Clinical Excellence to look into the recommended dosages, uses and so forth for diamorphine?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, a long list of investigations has been referred to the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. As regards future referrals, we shall of course keep this under constant review. Full consideration will be given to suggestions such as that just put forward by the noble Baroness.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that too many allegations have been made about withdrawal of treatment for this to be left to the GMC? The Government should set up an inquiry into every hospital trust to ensure that all practices in this area are above board. Is he further aware that this particular case arose because the woman doctor concerned was a whistle blower? She was able to blow the whistle only because she was leaving the profession. What message can the Government send to future whistle blowers to reassure them that they will be protected when they feel the need to speak out?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I believe that my noble friend knows that firm procedures and guidelines are already in place to enable staff to raise concerns about aspects of patient care. We expect all NHS trusts to ensure that those guidelines and procedures operate effectively. I am of course aware of concerns in this area. However, I believe that the House also needs to be assured that when allegations are made, they are considered as carefully as possible. That is why this matter has been sent to the General Medical Council.
In general, the Government are committed to high quality care for older people. In terms of safeguards, we have introduced a new system of risk assessment called "controlled assurance" which will match clinical governance to medicines management and ensure that a continuing assessment is set up to monitor prescribing in NHS hospitals. I believe that that is the approach that will produce results as quickly as possible, rather than a system of separate inquiries along the lines mentioned by my noble friend.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that this subject forms part of a general
470
campaign to promote the notion that the elderly are using up all the resources of the NHS? However, does the Minister agree with Professor Richard Himsworth, of Cambridge, who clearly demonstrated that it is not the elderly who are burning up NHS resources but rather the dying? It is only that it so happens that most people are old when they die. However, if they die in their teens or twenties they burn up just as much in the way of resources.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I do not disagree with that comment. We should not ever begrudge the resources used by the NHS in providing support and care for older people. However, it is essential to ensure that a consistent and high quality standard of service is maintained throughout the NHS. That is what the national service framework for older people will enable us to provide.

Organophosphates: Workshop on Research
2.56 p.m.
The Countess of Marasked Her Majesty's Government:
What was the outcome of the workshop on research on organophosphates held on 28th March.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Hayman): My Lords, this broadly based scientific workshop was set up to assist the development of a targeted research programme, taking forward the recommendations of the Committee on Toxicity and other research questions identified in the workshop. It was an extremely productive day, with useful input from all those who attended. The record of the proceedings has now been finalised and is being made public. It is being published on the MAFF, Department of Health and HSE websites and copies are being sent to all participants. Copies have also been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, first, perhaps I may thank the Minister for organising the workshop. The noble Baroness will know that for many years I have been asking for just such a workshop. Perhaps I may also express my gratitude to her for the help that she has given to OP sufferers.
Can the Minister tell the House whether extra research will be undertaken as a result of this workshop? Furthermore, will that research concentrate in particular on the synergistic effects of using combinations of organophosphates, either two together, with synthetic pyrethroids or with phenols? I understand that blood tests can be undertaken at Ninewells Hospital in Dundee to see whether antibodies can be made to these. Furthermore, can she encourage the development of the unit at the Middlesex Hospital which is investigating the neurological effects?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Countess for her remarks. She will be aware that the Committee on Toxicity recommended that research be undertaken into a number of specified areas. The reason for holding the workshop was in order to investigate whether it was important to look into additional, broader areas. We are building up the research requirements document which will be published and will call for bids by open competition to address research questions. We hope to be able to publish that document before the summer break. I shall ensure that the issues pointed out by the noble Countess—I appreciate that she has identified certain specific areas—will be taken into account when we come to draw up that research requirements document. Equally, I shall look into the issues surrounding support for particular services also mentioned by the noble Countess.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, whatever is the outcome of any new research, does the noble Baroness accept that, in effect, her ministry forced the use of organophosphates for 10 years and then proved astoundingly complacent about initiating investigations into the misery that that use has caused?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I do not accept the noble Lord's suggestion that the Government have been complacent in any way. We have put more effort into investigating OPs than I believe has ever been done before. The Committee on Toxicity was asked to take a fresh and completely independent look at the toxicity of OPs. On the basis of its results, not only have we undertaken the extra work necessary but we have taken regulatory action in order to withdraw OP sheep dips from the market while their containers are not considered safe by the VPC. Such action has not been universally welcomed but has been taken on the advice of the regulatory authority.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, will the Minister give more information as regards the outcome of the meeting that was held on 28th March? My understanding is that a great deal of evidence came out of that meeting and the Minister has suggested that research will be undertaken. Will she say more about the timing and the programme? She said that the report will be published in the summer. How soon will the suggestions in the report be followed up?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am not certain that new evidence was presented at the workshop. It was a matter of bringing together people who had worked in fields slightly peripheral to the mainstream investigations into OPs. It has been of particular concern to sufferers that we should investigate the database of people who believe that they are suffering from the effects of OPs. We are funding a study to do just that and the work should get under way shortly, before the research requirements document to which I alluded is published. When I attended the workshop, one of the main areas of concern related to the
472
potential effects on children and foetuses in the womb. We need to look carefully at whether that matter should be included in research requirements.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, did the workshop consider rumours that French wine barrels are treated with organophosphates?
Baroness Hayman: Not while I was there, my Lords. Having looked briefly at the report published today, I have not seen a reference to the issue. If it is of concern to my noble friend, I shall certainly investigate whether it should be examined in more detail.
The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, the Minister spoke of the Government withdrawing organophosphates from sheep dip because of inadequate containers. Will she indicate when there will be containers that the Government will approve?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the question is when the industry will produce containers that are considered by the Veterinary Products Committee to be safe for use. I understand that several suggestions for new container design are currently being examined by the committee and that it hopes to give advice to the licensing authorities next month.

Roadworks
3.3 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovilasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will either take powers to reduce the number of companies now at liberty to dig holes in the road or advise the chairmen and chief executives of those companies how they might limit the inconvenience to the public.
The Minister for Science, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 imposes a duty on street authorities to co-ordinate works, and the Government welcome the launch of the Central London Partnership earlier this month. They hope that it will be successful and, if successful, that it will be extended more widely. The Government also intend to implement Section 74 of the Act to allow utilities to be charged for occupying the road longer than an agreed period.
The Government are willing to look at new measures to reduce disruption but do not intend to reduce the number of companies with the right to dig new holes in the road as they believe that effective competition is the best way to increase choice, promote enterprise and bring down prices for consumers.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will accept my assurance that, when I tabled this Question, I had no idea that Thames Water,

473
egged on by one of the noble Lord's right honourable friends, would select today to announce that it is to dig 3,000 new holes in London's roads this year. Will the noble Lord wrack his brains as to whether there is any other capital city in the world where this kind of mess would be tolerated? Will the noble Lord—or perhaps his noble friend on the Front Bench—explain why people who make a filthy nuisance of themselves on the roads do not pay for the privilege, while the rest of us do? I am sorry that the Government Chief Whip is no longer in his place. Perhaps the noble Lord will have a word with him and urge him to give the excellent Bill that I introduced a week or so ago a fair wind. Then these pestilential people will be paying £1,000 per day for a very small section of road.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I am happy to accept that it is entirely a coincidence that the issue of digging holes for water repairs has been raised today. It stems from the suggestion by the water regulator that the major leakages that are taking place should be repaired properly. That is the reason why Thames Water has suggested that it will have to produce more holes. It is perfectly reasonable to suggest that Thames Water should have proper regard to the number of holes it digs in roads but at the same time properly conserve water. Those are two objectives that it should be set, and it should be able to abide by both.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there has been considerable disruption to the streets around Victoria for several weeks, with pneumatic drills, noise and dirt, and traffic lights put out of order at crossings, presenting a danger to pedestrians? What is the purpose of it all? This is not for water—there must be some other reason. Who gave these companies permission, and what is it for?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I cannot comment on individual cases and particular holes. My area of responsibility is the licensing of telecommunications companies, to which the Question relates. I would point out that the major initiative taken by the street authorities in the Central London Partnership is exactly the kind of initiative that we want to see in order to make certain that work of this kind is properly co-ordinated. Most people accept that much of this work has to be done. We all want to see it properly co-ordinated so that when a street is blocked and people try to find another route they do not also find that road blocked. It requires coordination. I welcome the fact that the Central London Partnership is attempting a major initiative to co-ordinate the work.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, if we have lane rental for road repairs, why can we not have it for disrepairs?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, lane rental is for disrepairs/repairs of this kind. That is the point. We shall have to continue to repair roads. The major issue is the attempt to co-ordinate the work so as to minimise inconvenience to road users.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, will the noble Lord agree that his original Answer gave the impression that he felt that the more competition there was in digging holes, the better it would be for London and other major cities? I invite him to withdraw that impression. More seriously, will the Minister assure the House that when he meets the captains of this particular industry he will try to get them interested in this problem, if only for the sake of public relations? Only when there is a direction from the top will there be a country-wide approach to the problem.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, if I in any way gave the impression that telecommunications companies were there to compete in digging holes, I withdraw that immediately. Their primary function is to provide telecommunications services. That is why this matter is the responsibility of the DTI. The DTI is in discussion with telecommunications companies to make certain that we try to achieve best practice in this regard and to raise performance in what is an intolerable situation for many road users.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, does the Minister believe that it is beyond the wit of man to invent a machine that can dig a narrow channel, lay a cable and backfill all in one go, with small road works at junctions? Will the Government consider offering a prize to an entrepreneur who can invent such a machine?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, if that would in any way reduce the number of questions raised on holes, personally I would offer such a prize.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, although much of the existing dislocation has been caused by the activities of water companies, by and large the field goes much wider? In view of the Minister's Answers to previous Questions on this subject, does he agree that the Department of Trade and Industry has issued open licences to many of those who now dig up the roads? Do the Government have any powers either to revoke those licences or enable the people of London to exert their will in this matter?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, as I have said in the past, 86 companies have the right under telecommunications licences to carry out work which is a major cause of holes in roads. This is part of a major programme to install the infrastructure that we need for the 21st century. We do not intend to reduce the number of licences because we believe that this is an essential piece of infrastructure. Within the terms of the Act and European legislation we must adopt a fair policy towards all companies.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, a few weeks ago in a debate initiated by my noble friend, the Minister announced that Section 74 of the New Roads and Street Works Act would be implemented. Can the noble Lord tell the House what progress has been

475
made in that regard? Have the necessary orders been drafted and, if so, when will they be laid before the House?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the regulations are being drafted. It will take a considerable time as this is a complicated matter. However, we hope to achieve our aim before the end of the year.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, will the Minister contact the chairmen of the companies concerned and tell them what pests they are? They give the appearance of lacking the manners or wit to understand the annoyance they cause. Surely, the Government should give them a friendly prod.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, we are perfectly aware of the situation. The question is how to devise a course of action which will improve the situation rather than simply expressing aggravation about it.

House of Lords: Public Awareness
3.12 p.m.
Lord Phillips of Sudburyasked Her Majesty's Government:
How they plan to stimulate public awareness of, and involvement with, the work of the House of Lords.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, overall this is an area which is the responsibility of the House itself, not Her Majesty's Government. However, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, is himself well placed to offer ideas on, and to contribute to, the wider understanding of the work of the House of Lords. There are many other noble Lords in all parts of the House—obviously, it would be invidious to name them—who are equally successful in promoting public awareness. I would be encouraged if the House was accurately judged as an important part of the legislature and Peers as hardworking Members of Parliament, rather than, as is sometimes the case, colourful characters in a bizarre comic opera. But, as always, it is the responsibility of Peers themselves, individually or collectively, to achieve that.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I am grateful to the Leader of the House for her reply. Does the noble Baroness agree that the great British public is in a state of almost complete ignorance about what is said and done in this place and that that is an evidently self-defeating state of affairs, as recent research and polling data make clear? Is the Leader of the House also aware that, as far as I have been able to assess, we spend less than one penny per head on public information and education about the entire workings of this place?
476
Does the noble Baroness agree that that is scandalously inadequate and, compared with other legislatures, very backward?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, as I am sure the noble Lord is aware, since the autumn of 1996 the House has had a dedicated information officer who does a very good job of work. It has also had a dedicated inquiry service since 1998. I refer the noble Lord to his helpful contribution to the debate in this House on 10th May on the workings of the House of Lords in which he said that the Information Office carried out its work "brilliantly". I suggest that we are fairly well served at the moment.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, can I tempt the Leader of the House to agree with me that the best way that noble Lords can stimulate involvement in and public awareness and approval of this House is by actions such as voting against the Government on closed lists for European elections, student fees, free post in London mayoral elections and Section 28? Will the noble Baroness encourage the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, not to "cosy up'. to new Labour too much but occasionally to join us in the coming months to increase public approval of your Lordships' House by similar defeats of the Government?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I certainly do not intend to fall to the noble Lord's temptation to intervene in the relationship between the Conservative Opposition and the Liberal Democrat Benches. I point out to the noble Lord that the dedicated information service to which I referred in my Answer to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, had its busiest day on 11th November 1999 when this House passed the House of Lords Act.
Lord Steel of Aikwood: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the pre-legislative scrutiny by committees in the Scottish Parliament has proved very popular in engaging both the public and civic organisations? Since the Leader of the House made a speech in this House 10 days ago about the possibility of dealing with more legislation by way of committees and electronic voting, will she come to Scotland to see these methods working very successfully in practice?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I always welcome any opportunity to visit Scotland. As I have not yet had an opportunity to see the Scottish Parliament in action that is a particularly attractive invitation. Several points were raised in our useful debate on the workings of the House of Lords on 10th May which referred to some of the very good practices in the Scottish Parliament. That is an attractive invitation.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that a good way to inform the public about what we are and what we do is by each Peer having a website to tell the public about the work of the House and the

477
interests and expertise of noble Lords? Does my noble friend agree that that would provide some means of communication with the public?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I very much welcome my noble friend's energy in this regard. It is up to individual Peers to create the appropriate impression of their work in your Lordships' House. As I understand it, the website of the House of Lords is being redesigned to make it more effective and easier to manage for users both in the House and outside. I look forward to seeing the extent of that redesign.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, can the Leader of the House tell noble Lords how many hits the website has had over, say, the past three months and how high up the search engines it is, since those are the two factors which really matter?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I do not have the precise figures broken down in that way. The only information I have, which I believe covers both the dedicated call line and website hits, is that inquiries are running at about 2,500 to 3,000 a month. If I can obtain the more detailed information that the noble Lord requests I shall write to him.

Electronic Communications Bill
Read a third time, and passed.

Children (Leaving Care) Bill [H.L.]
3.19 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 2 [Additional functions of local authorities in respect of certain children]:
Earl Howemoved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2. line 33, leave out ("aged sixteen or seventeen") and insert ("between the ages of sixteen and twenty-one").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 1, I speak also to all the other amendments in my name. As we reach the final stages of this short but important Bill there is one issue above all others that we have debated at earlier stages which remains to be resolved. I refer to the question of whether the new duty on local authorities to assess and meet the needs of eligible young people should extend beyond the limited period allowed for on the face of the Bill. The case for extending this duty beyond a care leaver's 18th birthday up to and including the age of 21 is, I believe, overwhelming. It is a case that was strongly recommended by Sir William Utting in his report on the review of safeguards for children living away from home and was endorsed wholeheartedly by the Select Committee on Health in another place.
Nor is there any doubt among the many voluntary organisations working in the care system and assisting care leavers that to limit the scope of the new duty to
478
the two years immediately following a young person's discharge from care would be profoundly shortsighted. As noble Lords from all sides of the Chamber argued in Committee, we can see from examples of work done in various parts of the country how cost-effective it is to provide good quality support to care leavers throughout their first four or five years of independent living. The evidence can be seen in lower rates of offending, acquiring skills for life, maintaining a home, and building that essential quality of self-esteem. By contrast the statistics for those care leavers who are not so fortunate in terms of aftercare tell a very different and depressing story.
I am certain that the Minister needs no persuading on the merits of these arguments. Indeed, it is clear from all that he has said that the issue for the Government is not whether extended support should be given to care leavers, but when. That issue depends on the availability of resources. Those of us who have worked in government departments will know how easy it is for others outside government to make demands on the budget when the reality for Ministers is a good deal more complex and difficult. Quite often, chief among those difficulties is the process of obtaining agreement from the Treasury.
However, one significant thing has happened since we first began debating the Bill last December and since we last debated it on Report; namely, the pledge from Ministers of very substantial additional resources for the health budget with effect from next year. In the light of that announcement, is the Minister able to say anything more on funding? In making that request, my hopes are high. A number of amendments, grouped with my amendment, have been tabled by the Government on the issue of extended support. Without wishing to pre-empt the Minister's remarks, I believe that I am right in interpreting the amendments as a significant move by the Government in the direction of the position that I and other noble Lords have been asking them to take. I am grateful to the Minister for his courtesy in letting me have the text of these amendments on Friday and for the helpful explanatory letter which accompanied them.
If I have understood the government amendments correctly, they represent very good news indeed. They appear to fulfil the undertaking made by the Minister in Committee on providing extended support for care leavers for training, education and employment. Equally, they appear also to encompass the continuing support proposed in my amendments. I should be grateful if the Minister could answer two questions. First, if the government amendments are accepted, the new duties to be placed on local authorities will apply to care leavers, or "former relevant children" as they are termed, up to the age of 21. Can the Minister say whether that means until the child or young person reaches the age of 22 or, as I slightly fear that it means, up to but not beyond his or her 21st birthday?
Secondly, I am sure that it will be of immense interest to the House if the Minister can now say when the Government propose to bring the new provisions into effect. The noble Lord may be unable to be too forthcoming. I am reminded of Sir William Utting's

479
words in his report. He believed, and still does I trust, that if there is a time to make these changes, it is now or as soon as possible. I look forward to hearing from the Minister and other noble Lords. I beg to move.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, the aim of the amendment—it was put forward in Committee and on Report—is to ensure that local authorities are under a duty to meet the continuing assessed needs of young people up to the age of 21 who have previously been in care. This would provide a safety net for all those young people who leave care and get into difficulties later. The view of all sides of the Chamber in Committee and on Report was that young people leaving care have to cope with the challenges and responsibilities of major changes in their lives at a far earlier stage than other young people. Yet they face additional problems purely as a result of having been in care.
It cannot be right that young people in care must go to great lengths to obtain the opportunities that other young people take for granted. It cannot be right that children and young people leaving care have to fight for Financial and practical assistance to stay on a course, in a job, or in a home where they feel secure and happy. I am glad to say that the amendment was supported by the Association of Directors of Social Services.
On 10th February in the debate in Grand Committee, and on 9th March on Report, the Minister expressed his agreement with the principle of the need to extend the proposed new duty to care leavers up to the age of 21. He said that the Government were committed to doing that as soon as possible. However, the problem as he expressed it was essentially one of timing On these Benches, although we understood the timing difficulties faced by the Government, and the fact that the Comprehensive Spending Review round two had not yet pronounced, we were firmly of the view that the duty should be put on the face of the Bill. A powerful moral and practical case for pressing ahead was made by Sir William Utting in the House of Lords at a meeting in January. He concluded:
"A better time for pressing ahead is unlikely to occur. If it is not done now, can it ever be done?"
We are delighted on these Benches, therefore, that after consideration the Minister has decided to accept the arguments put forward on all sides of the House. I should like to join the noble Earl, Lord Howe, in thanking the Minister for his courtesy in writing to me on Friday announcing that decision. I pay tribute at this stage to the consortium of voluntary organisations working with looked-after children led by First Key which campaigned so effectively and gave us such valuable support in arguing the case.
I recognise that much of the efficacy of the amendment tabled by the Minister will depend on the appointed date chosen. I hope that the Minister's influence, which has proved so considerable to date, will extend to ensuring an earlier appointed day.
480
Guidance, however, on when that appointed day will be would be much appreciated. I look forward to hearing from the Minister.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I support the amendment. Many young people who have been in care or are coming out of care are disabled or have learning difficulties, and the process therefore takes much longer. It is an important matter.
I congratulate the Minister on his hard work on, and interest in, the Bill. I was surprised that more noble Lords did not take sufficient interest in the Bill. It is exceedingly important. If one can prevent people being sucked into a life of crime, it is well worth while. That is of great importance to the families, the young people and to the country because it saves money.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, I support the amendment and put forward one further argument. We have discussed the way in which young people have been let down before they arrived in care and while in care. The Government's innovations—the young person's assistant and the pathway plan—will give those young people the additional support they need to make a go of life. However, if the young person's assistant does not have the authority to require local authorities to provide the necessary facilities agreed between the young person and his assistant, there is the danger that the trust between the young person and his adviser will be lost. We have talked often of the danger of estrangement. It is an important consideration. I, too, welcome the happy news of the Government's concession with regard to training and education.
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Thornton: My Lords, I welcome the success and my congratulations on the cross-party achievement. We have all worked together to make the Bill more successful. I have worked with children in care—indeed, many years ago I worked in a residential home—and this Bill is the most important piece of legislation I have participated in since my introduction two years ago. We know that the passing of the Bill will mean something real to a group of young people who are most disadvantaged and in need of support. I congratulate the Minister and thank him for all his efforts on our behalf.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, it is tempting to quit while we are ahead in the mutual congratulations. It is a reflection on our serious and considered debates on the Bill throughout its stages in this House. It is also about our united determination to do much better for looked-after children and looked-after children who have left care.
The stark statistics which I quoted at Second Reading resulted in our discussions on the amendments: 75 per cent of young people leaving care have no educational qualifications; up to 50 per cent are unemployed; and up to 20 per cent experience some form of homelessness within two years of leaving care.

481
Such statistics make me believe that the Bill will enable us to provide the support that has been so sadly lacking in so many parts of the country for these young people.
The development of a much enhanced service and the legislation that is before us rests on current good practice within the system. It is as well also to acknowledge the work of some local authorities in providing effective support.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, said that it is "when" and not "if". That takes us to the substance of what is proposed: ensuring that young care leavers receive the support they need. The Government's amendments provide a far-reaching and coherent package for support for these young people. In beginning my remarks I apologise to your Lordships for the lateness in their tabling. However, given their welcome, I am sure that I can ask indulgence.
There is no doubt that support for care leavers aged 18 and over has aroused considerable passion and debate. Noble Lords from all sides of the House have made the point that young people from a normal family background can usually expect to be able to ask for help and support from their parents into their 20s and in some cases even longer. Noble Lords have made the point that young people leaving care have at least the same need for such continuing support. I agree wholeheartedly.
The amendments are about making sure that care leavers receive the support they need as young adults. Amendment No. 5 removes any ambiguity about the status of a young person who is an eligible child and leaves care at 18. Such a young person skips, as it were, the status of relevant child, as relevant children are those who leave care at 16 and 17, qualifying for the new arrangements. It might therefore seem that such a young person would not qualify for support after 18, but this amendment makes it quite plain that they are to receive these continuing duties from their responsible authority.
In addition, through these amendments we have brought together all the provisions for continuing support for former relevant children, so that they will sit as a single package at new Section 22C rather than being scattered through the Bill. I believe that that approach has a number of benefits. First, it makes this part of the Bill a good deal clearer. As we have debated the legislation, we have all had to wrestle with the fact that it is complex. We have tried to balance concision against repetition. This new presentation introduces some repetition, but I hope that your Lordships will agree that it is a price worth paying for the clarity it offers.
Amendments Nos. 3, 6 to 10 and 13 to 15 are all drafting amendments, mainly consequential on grouping all these duties together in new Section 23C. Finally, Amendment 11, at subsection (5), introduces new duties whereby local authorities must provide assistance to their former relevant children.
We have agreed that we would want to see those duties introduced as soon as possible, but we have so far failed to agree how they should appear in the Bill.
482
The Government's position continues to be that implementation will occur when resources permit and at levels which resources permit, with differential commencements if necessary. In laying the amendment, I must again stress that we cannot anticipate the outcome of the spending review. It would therefore fall to health Ministers to defer implementation or to meet any costs arising from the amendments by reprioritisation within the Department of Health allocation in the event that the spending review did not award sufficient funds for this purpose.
Given that position, which will not come as a surprise to noble Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Laming, offered us a way through our impasse when he spoke in Committee. He pointed out that it is not uncommon for Bills to be passed without a final commitment to a timetable for implementation either for all or part of the Bill. It remains a matter for government to decide when to commence any of the Bill's provisions.
We have listened carefully to the arguments which noble Lords have made repeatedly throughout debates on the issue. Noble Lords are rightly concerned that there should be no shred of ambiguity about the Government's commitment to these young care leavers to ensure that they receive the support which will enable them to live fulfilled and productive lives as full members of society. That is why we have decided that the new duties should appear on the face of the Bill to be implemented as soon as we have secured the resources to support them.
The amendment to new Section 23C(5)(a) imposes a new duty on a responsible authority to assist a former relevant child up to the age of 21 with the expenses associated with employment. I say to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, that that means on the person's 21st birthday. The amendment at new Section 23C(5)(b) imposes a new duty on a responsible authority to assist a former relevant child with the expenses associated with education or training. In this case, the duty applies until the end of the care leaver's agreed programme of education or training, even if that takes him past the age of 21. This is another place where this approach offers more than was before us previously.
The amendment at new Section 23C(5)(c) imposes a new duty on local authorities to provide general assistance to care leavers aged 18 to 21 if their welfare requires it. That assistance can be in kind or, if appropriate, in cash. As ever, the key mechanism for this is the pathway plan. A young person will always keep his pathway plan until he is 21 and it will continue to be reviewed and revised until then.
However, if the local authority continues to assist someone in education or training, new Section 23C(8)(b) ensures that he will keep his personal adviser and his personal plan, which will continue to be reviewed and revised until that support comes to an end. So it is possible to envisage a case where someone comes very late indeed to education, starts his GCSEs just before the age of 21 and is assisted by the local authority through a complete course of education to degree level or even beyond. That meets an important point which was raised in Committee.

483
The amendment at new Section 23C(9) requires the authority to disregard any gaps in attendance for reasons such as illness so long as the young person resumes the course as soon as possible. New Section 23C(10) obliges the responsible authority to provide vacation accommodation to young people whom they are assisting with higher education, should they need it.
I hope that noble Lords will agree that this package of support is a significant step forward for young people aged 18 and over who have left care. It treats them as adults operating in the adult world, but it provides support for them while they find their feet. It seems to me to be very much a feature of the Bill that support and assistance will be tailored to young people's individual needs and circumstances. Therefore, the provisions mirror much more closely what a young person could expect from his family.
I believe also that the provisions for support through education and training should encourage more young people to take up those opportunities and so improve their chances of a rewarding career. No longer will we have a situation in which as many as 75 per cent of young people who leave care have no educational qualifications. I trust that noble Lords will support the amendments.
Baroness David: My Lords, I should like to thank the Minister for sending me the amendments at the weekend. I was most grateful and I congratulate him. I do not know whether the lateness of the amendments was a sign that he had to fight hard in the department to get them. However, he has done extremely well. We are very pleased and grateful to him.
I am glad that he said what he did about those who enter education rather late. They may not have finished by the time they reach 18 or 21 but they will continue to receive some help and advice, perhaps by means of accommodation or cash. However, I believe that altogether it represents a very happy outcome for the Bill and, again, I congratulate the Minister. I hope that it will not be too long before it can be implemented, and I hope that he will continue to fight for that.
Lord Carter: My Lords, perhaps I may remind the House that at Third Reading only the mover of the amendment should speak after the Minister. However, in the general atmosphere of good will that prevails, perhaps we shall ignore that.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord. I much regret that, due to other duties in the House, I have not been able to take part in the Bill before now. I have one specific question to which I should be most grateful for an answer. That question arose because of experience that I have had in connection with children's committees at local authority level. I have known of occasions when children who leave care have been allocated a flat but have not had the slightest idea how to shop, cook or do anything connected with looking after themselves in
484
that flat. Do the amendment that we are now discussing (which I have been following carefully) and other amendments deal with that point?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I believe that the noble Baroness has made a very important point. The whole purpose of the Bill as it stands before your Lordships' House is to ensure that a pathway plan and young person's adviser provide an infrastructure of support which will not allow a young person simply to be placed in accommodation or elsewhere and left to fend for themselves. The purpose of the pathway plan and the advice from the young person's adviser is to enable young people more easily to cope in those circumstances. I believe that the noble Baroness has raised a most important issue.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I noticed the Chief Whip's eye on me and I shall be brief. I wish to ask a very short question. During the course of the Bill, I noticed with interest that the Minister talked of cash being available in exceptional circumstances. However, just now he referred to "appropriate circumstances". They are not the same. The words "appropriate circumstances" provide a wider definition. I was about to question the Minister as to whether "exceptional circumstances" are, indeed, wide enough.
At First Reading I raised a question, which I believe my noble friend has just amplified, with regard to the necessity for young people to be able to budget and to be taught to budget. I believe we agreed that cash would be available. I noticed that in both new Section 24C and now in the new Section 11 it will be available in "exceptional" circumstances. I wonder whether that is too tightly framed.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I want to raise two points. When we debated this matter at Second Reading and in Committee, I believe that we agreed that part of the whole package of measures which arise from this legislation is to enable young people to go out into the world with the ability to survive with support that can be given through the young person's adviser and through other mechanisms contained in the Bill.
The question in relation to resources is important. One of the main purposes of the Bill is to remove the perverse incentives which encourage local authorities to encourage young people to leave care as soon as possible because those young people are eligible to receive benefits and the bill does not then fall on the local authority. Importantly for 16 and 17 year-olds, the Bill changes the circumstances so that a ring-fenced budget will enable a local authority to provide proper support, including, of course, issues in relation to the handling of resources.
I believe that the point raised by the noble Baroness relates to people aged 18 and over who become eligible for benefits. Therefore, the circumstances in which

485
additional assistance may need to be given in cash would be exceptional. I hope that I have clarified that point.
Earl Howe: My Lords, as always, the Minister has been very clear and helpful in speaking to his amendments. I shall not spoil the mood of general rejoicing by qualifying my thanks to him in any way. It was not realistic to expect that a commencement date for the new provisions would appear on the face of the Bill; nor, indeed, was I seeking that. It must be enough for us to place our trust in the Minister's assurances given today about the commitment that exists in his department on the importance of these matters.
This has been a most rewarding Bill in which to take part, not simply for the subject matter which, as the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, rightly said, is of great importance, but for the way in which the Minister personally has listened and responded to the concerns expressed by noble Lords throughout the Bill's stages. I thank him for that. I believe that the House has done its work well and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[.Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
3.45 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heathmoved Amendment No. 3:
Page 3, line 18, leave out ("subsection (8) or under section 24A or 24B") and insert ("this Part").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 4 not moved.]
Lord Hunt of Kings Heathmoved Amendments Nos. 5 to 11:
Page 4, line 19, leave out from ("the") to end of line 25 and insert ("duties provided for in this section towards—

(a) a person who has been a relevant child for the purposes of section 23A (and would be one if he were under eighteen), and in relation to whom they were the last responsible authority; and

(b) a person who was being looked after by them when he attained the age of eighteen, and immediately before ceasing to be looked after was an eligible child,

and in this section such a person is referred to as a "former relevant child.").
Page 4. leave out lines 26 to 29.
Page 4, line 30, leave out ("The first duty is") and insert ("It is the duty of the local a uthority").
Page 4, line 31, leave out ("him") and insert ("a former relevant child").
Page 4, line 34, leave out ("The other duties are") and insert ("It is the duty of the local authority").
Page 4. line 36, leave out ("him") and insert ("a former relevant child").
Page 4, line 38, at end insert—
("(5) It is the duty of the local authority to give a former relevant child—

(a) assistance of the kind referred to in section 24B(1). to the extent that his welfare requires it;

486

(b) assistance of the kind referred to in section 24B(2), to the extent that his welfare and his educational or training needs require it;

(c) other assistance, to the extent that his welfare requires it.

(6) The assistance given under subsection (5)(c) may be in kind or, in exceptional circumstances, in cash.
(7) Subject to subsection (8), the duties set out in subsections (3), (4) and (5) subsist until the former relevant child reaches the age of twenty-one.
(8) If the former relevant child's pathway plan sets out a programme of education or training which extends beyond his twenty-first birthday—

(a) the duty set out in subsection (5)(b) continues to subsist for so long as the former relevant child continues to pursue that programme; and

(b) the duties set out in subsections (3) and (4) continue to subsist concurrently with that duty.

(9) For the purposes of subsection (8)(a) there shall be disregarded any interruption in a former relevant child's pursuance of a programme of education or training if the local authority are satisfied that he will resume it as soon as is reasonably practicable.
(10) Section 24B(5) applies in relation to a person being given assistance under subsection (5)(b) as it applies in relation to a person to whom section 24B(3) applies.
(11) Subsections (7) to (9) of section 17 apply in relation to assistance given under this section as they apply in relation to assistance given under that section.".").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 3 [Personal advisers and pathway plans]:
Lord Hunt of Kings Heathmoved Amendment No. 12:
Page 5, leave out lines 4 to 7 and insert—
("(2) Personal advisers appointed under or by virtue of this Part shall (in addition to any other functions) have such functions as the Secretary of State prescribes.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, on previous occasions many noble Lords have recognised the central importance of the personal adviser to the success of the new arrangements for young people in and leaving care. On Report I stated that the Government intended to bring forward an amendment at Third Reading to allow for greater clarity as to the functions of the personal adviser and his or her relationship with the local authority. That is the purpose of the amendment before us.
The amendment makes clear that regulations provided for at new Section 23D may set out the functions of the personal adviser in respect of all the groups of children and young people who may be entitled to one. That means eligible children, relevant children, former relevant children and any other group of young people for whom the Secretary of State prescribes a personal adviser.
This amendment is straightforward. It seeks to provide greater clarity as to the functions of the personal adviser and the regulations that the Government will be putting in place to prescribe those functions. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heathmoved Amendments Nos. 13 and 14:
Page 5. line 14. leave out from ("under") to end of line 15 and insert ("this Part, both while they are looking after him and later:").
Page 5. line 21, leave out ("section 23B(8), 24A or 24B") and insert ("this Part").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 4 [Advice and assistance for certain children and young persons aged 16 or over]:
Lord Hunt of Kings Heathmoved Amendment No. 15:
Page 6,1ine 45, leave out from ("duty") to ("empowered") in line I on page 7 and insert (", or are").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 6 [Exclusion from benefits]:
[Amendment No. 16 not moved.]
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 8 [Interpretation, commencement, extent, Wales and short title]:
Lord Hunt of Kings Heathmoved Amendment No. 17:
Page 10, line 16, leave out ("which also extends") and insert ("and this section, which also extend").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a technical amendment to make clear that the ancillary provisions of Clause 8 also extend to Scotland. Noble Lords will be aware that the intention is that Clause 6 in respect of welfare benefits will not be commenced in Scotland until there is Scottish legislation in place to provide support for care leavers. This amendment will allow Clause 6 to be commenced in Scotland by order at the appropriate time. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
An amendment (privilege) made.
Lord Hunt of Kings Health: I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Hunt of Kings Heath.)
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure. In moving this Motion, I suggest that we resume not before 4 p.m.
Moved, That the House do now adjourn during pleasure.—(Lord Hunt of Kings Heath.)
Lord Higgins: My Lords, the House ought to have some explanation.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the explanation I suggest is the expeditious nature of our deliberations on the Children (Leaving Care) Bill.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, that really is not a satisfactory answer. There may well be one. If every time the House proceeds to make rapid progress, we
488
then find that we adjourn during pleasure, proceedings will be unduly delayed and we will all get to bed much later.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 3.53 to 4 p.m.]

Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill
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 again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Hollis of Heigham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Brougham and Vaux) in the Chair.]
Clause 56 [Rights of appeal]:
[Amendment No. 169 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 56 agreed to.
Clause 57 [Time limit for appeals]:
On Question, Whether Clause 57 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Astor of Hever: I rise to give my objections to the Question that Clause 57 stand part of the Bill. We seek to ensure that the present time-limit in relation to an appeal will remain as 12 months. We believe that the current time-limit within which to lodge an appeal works satisfactorily. The United States has a 12-month time-limit for its appeals.
There is some concern that if the time-limit is reduced to six months, servicemen and women who suffer illness or incapacity may not have sufficient time to gather the information necessary for an appeal. Appeals are long and tortuous processes, and such men and women will have had to go through the problems of the initial claim. Accordingly, the 12- month period should remain.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I rise to support my noble friend Lord Astor of Hever. The Law Society of Scotland is concerned about this issue. Six months seems to be a short time. I hope that the Minister will give an adequate explanation of why she believes that the people in the circumstances that my noble friend has mentioned will find that six months is long enough.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: First, I apologise to the House for the delay in business. The preceding business collapsed faster than I had expected. I apologise. Did the noble Lord wish to—
Lord Denham: My Lords, perhaps I have been in this House too long. In the old days, if the noble Lord who was to move the business did not turn up in time, we went on to the next business.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: There were reasons for the delay which the Front Benches know about, but I apologise.
This clause provides new time-limits for war pensions appeals. Currently, there are two time-limits, a three-month time-limit and a 12-month time-limit, but some appeals are not subjected to any time-limit. Furthermore, those time-limits can be extended indefinitely if the appellant shows "reasonable excuse" for not bringing an appeal earlier. In practice, almost all late applications are heard and therefore there is no effective appeal time-limit.
It may help if I describe how the current provisions came about. Much of the war pensions appeals legislation dates from 1943. Naturally, the provisions were generous, acknowledging the very real difficulties that people faced at that time in both claiming a war pension and appealing against decisions. We can see that approach reflected in the test of whether a late appeal should be accepted. The appellant was only required to demonstrate that he, or she, had a "reasonable excuse" for delaying bringing the appeal. Legislators in 1943 did not attempt to provide for the many possible reasons people would have for not bringing an appeal within the specified time. But the legislators always envisaged that all appeals should be subject to a time-limit.
The effect of using that legislation, more than 50 years later, is that tribunals are asked to consider whether a decision, sometimes made decades before, was made correctly. It is a time-limit about appeals only, and not the initial decision. This is a time-consuming business as the tribunal attempts to ascertain the appellant's circumstances as they existed when the decision was made—possibly 10 years earlier, 20 years earlier or longer—and to apply the medical understanding and legislation that existed at that time. That does not help the tribunal to reach just decisions.
The provisions in this clause will require appellants to appeal closer to the time when the decision is made, when the facts of the matter are clear and not subject to assumptions about conditions that existed in distant memory. Hence interim decisions will retain the current three-month appeal time-limit but all other appeals will be subject to a six-month time-limit.
We have proposed a six-month appeal time-limit, which is a more generous time-limit than appeals to almost any other tribunal. This is because we recognise a debt of gratitude and because we need to strike the right balance, recognising that war pensioners' appeals have not previously been subjected to time-limits, unlike other appellants such as social security appellants.
I am aware that there has been some concern—as voiced this afternoon by the noble Lord, Lord Astor, and the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour—that a period of six months does not provide vulnerable and perhaps grieving people with sufficient time in which to bring an appeal. I should perhaps add that, before the appeal time-limit starts, a person will have made a claim for a war disablement pension or a war widows
490
pension, provided the necessary information, and received a notification of the outcome. The appeal time-limit will therefore start some months after the event that precipitated the claim.
I should perhaps add that introducing these provisions does not alter the position that war pension claims originally are not time limited. It is the appeals only that are to be time limited. Indeed, the War Pensions Agency continues to receive new claims from people who are now identifying conditions that they attribute to service undertaken 50 or more years ago. The appeal time-limit applies only from the time the claim is decided. I also know that people are concerned that there may be changes in medical opinion, and if your Lordships want, I can discuss that further.
This clause also contains a provision that would enable the appeal time-limits to be varied either up or down. We have no intention of doing that, but we want to see whether the changes that we propose in this clause make good sense. Certainly the advice that we have had from some ex-servicemen's organisations is that they feel comfortable with the proposals.
We intend to replace the "reasonable excuse" provision with regulations that where there are late appeals, they must be accepted within the 12 months following the statutory appeal time-limit. These regulations, which will be subject to the affirmative procedure, will enable war pensioners to know the circumstances in which a late appeal may be accepted by the presidents of the pensions appeal tribunals.
Decisions made before the new time-limit is commenced will have transitional protection. People who receive a decision before this provision is commenced will have at least one year from the notification of the decision in which to bring an appeal, excepting those interim decisions that are currently, and will remain, subject to a three-month appeal time-limit. The new appeal time-limits will apply to people for whom decisions are made on and after the commencement date. I should also add—I am sure that this will be of interest to your Lordships—that the War Pensions Agency intends to contact war pensioners, by post and through articles in magazines, to advise them of their new appeal rights and the changes in the appeal time-limits.
I hope that your Lordships will agree that there is no limit to the time within which the original claim may be brought. Clearly, some illnesses or disabilities may occur significantly later than the point at which the injury occurred. However, we believe that this is reasonable and, as far as I am aware, no deep concerns about the matter have been raised by the relevant organisations. It seems reasonable that the appeal should be within six months of that decision, otherwise a decision could come 20 years after the original circumstance and an appeal 20 years after that. Clearly, it would be unreasonable in those situations to expect a tribunal to be able to make a decision that was informed by the circumstances at the time. I believe that the proposal is reasonable. If, at any subsequent stage, we need to vary it in the light of the workings of the proposals, I shall be happy to come back to your

491
Lordships. I hope that that explanation and putting the matter on the record will be helpful to the organisations concerned. I ask the noble Lord to agree that the clause be accepted by the House.
Lord Astor of Hever: I thank the noble Baroness for that full answer and I thank my noble friend Lady Carnegy for her support.
In respect of the Minister's answer, I am not convinced that the reasons that we have heard are good enough to reduce the appeal time-limit on the face of the Bill to six months. However, I shall read Hansard carefully and I shall discuss the matter with the Law Society of Scotland and the service organisations. In the mean time, I shall not press my opposition to the Question.
Clause 57 agreed to.
Clause 58 agreed to.
Clause 59 [Constitution and procedure of Pensions Appeal Tribunals]:
Lord Astor of Hevermoved Amendment No. 170:
Page 62. line 42, leave out ("other persons") and insert ("persons with knowledge or experience of service in Her Majesty's naval, military or air forces").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 170, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 171 and 172. The purpose of Amendment No. 170 is to retain an ex-service member as a member of the tribunals. That is essential to maintain the credibility of the PAT as seen by the appellant. It would not be right to have only civilians sitting in judgment. The purpose of Amendment No. 171 is to remove the option of not having a service representative on the tribunal. We want to ensure that both service and disability representatives are included. Amendment No. 172 would give credibility in the eyes of the claimant that members of the tribunal understand the nature of warfare and service life. Even many widows do not know exactly what their late husbands did.
These amendments have the support of the Royal British Legion, SSAFA and the RAF Association. I declare an interest as a former Army officer who received a lump sum compensation for noise-induced hearing loss and as president of the Earl Haig branch of the Royal British Legion. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: I support my noble friend, Lord Astor, in this group of amendments. In matters of this sort, as in all matters of justice, it is important not only that justice should be done, but that it should be seen to be done. It is more likely to be seen to be done in fixing service pensions, especially if they are pensions which result from injuries on active service, if those who have the responsibility of awarding and fixing the pensions have the sort of sympathy and understanding needed. Claimants are more likely to get that from people who have themselves served in the Armed Forces.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: These amendments seek to maintain many of the current arrangements that apply to the composition of the pensions appeal tribunal. Amendment No. 170 would require the Lord
492
Chancellor to appoint a service member to the tribunal. Amendment No. 171 would place a requirement on the Lord Chancellor to appoint lay members with specific experience to the tribunal, and Amendment No. 172 seeks to prescribe the military service the lay member should have.
The intention of this part of Clause 59 is to enable the Lord Chancellor to create a pool of people with the expertise required to hear all the appeals within the jurisdiction of the pensions appeal tribunal. Pulling together the expertise that is necessary to deal with individual appeals will be a matter for the presidents of the pensions appeal tribunals. As such, the clause provides that each of the tribunal's jurisdictions should have a pool of people with the skills, expertise and experience to decide the issues.
Subsection (3) of Clause 59 provides that the schedule to the Pensions Appeal Tribunals Act 1943 will include a new paragraph 2A. The first subparagraph—that is, paragraph 2A(1)—defines three categories of tribunal members; that is, those who are legally qualified, those who are medically qualified and those termed as "other persons". The following sub-paragraphs stipulate the qualifications required of the tribunal members, describing the legal, medical and other qualifications. As such, it is not appropriate to introduce a definition of "other persons" into that sub-paragraph, particularly in an amendment which does not recognise other expertise that could be helpful to the tribunals. Amendment No. 170 is therefore unnecessary and I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw it.
Amendment No. 171 would amend paragraph 2A(4) which deals with the definition of "other persons". As written, the clause requires the Lord Chancellor,
"to have regard to the desirability",
of appointing persons with knowledge or experience of service in Her Majesty's naval, military or air forces and matters relating to the disability of persons. Amendment No. 171 would make those appointments compulsory.
It is the intention of the Lord Chancellor always to include people with knowledge or experience of service life and of disablement in the pool of people to hear appeals. The legislation has been phrased in this way to provide for the smaller jurisdictions, such as Northern Ireland, where the number of appeals are low (around 100) and therefore the number of tribunal members is small. In those instances, the unexpected loss of a tribunal member could result in the jurisdiction being incomplete and therefore unable to operate. It is solely to provide for that eventuality that the clause has been phrased in this way.
But the concerns of the Committee have been heard and I assure Members that the Lord Chancellor will appoint people with service experience to the tribunal. If it helps, and in response to the speeches made by both the noble Lords, Lord Astor and Lord Renton, I am happy to come back on Report with an amendment

493
placing a duty on the Lord Chancellor to appoint persons with knowledge or experience of Her Majesty's naval, military or air forces to the pool of tribunal members; in other words, putting a duty on the Lord Chancellor in the Bill, if that would meet the Committee's concern. I appreciate at the moment it is an understanding. If the Committee is willing, I am willing to respond with a government undertaking.
Amendment No. 172 also relates to the subparagraph which deals with the appointment of "other persons" and provides for people with "similar military experience" to be appointed. Unlike the previous amendment, the problem here is that we are dealing with a group of people who are diminishing in number. The phrase we use in the Bill,
"knowledge or experience of service",
will enable the Lord Chancellor to appoint people with a wide range of service experience to the pool of tribunal members. It will be for the independent presidents of the tribunals to allocate people to the individual tribunals. Again, I am more than happy to write on the Committee's behalf to the presidents of the pensions appeal tribunals to ensure that they are aware of the concerns of the Chamber.
Our problem is that there is a shrinking number of people with an exact match of appropriate service. That is why we are seeking to establish a pool on which the Lord Chancellor may draw and from which the presidents of the tribunals may appoint to any specific tribunal. If it meets the Committee's concern, I shall bring an amendment forward on the face of the Bill for the Lord Chancellor to appoint such a pool, and I shall write to the presidents of the appeal tribunals drawing attention to the anxieties expressed today. With those undertakings, I hope that I have met the noble Lord's concerns and that he will be content to withdraw the amendment.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Astor of Hever: I thank the Minister for that helpful reply and my noble friend Lord Renton for his support. I was comforted by the Minister's reassurance that the Lord Chancellor normally appoints people to tribunals with knowledge and experience of service life. I am sure the Committee will be happy for the Minister to come back with an amendment on Report as she suggested. I shall consider her words in detail and discuss them with the service organisations with whom I have been in touch, for I know this is a matter of great concern to them. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 171 and 172 not moved.]
Clause 59 agreed to.
Clause 60 [Composition of central advisory committee]:
[Amendments Nos. 173 and 174 not moved.]
Clause 60 agreed to.
Baroness Strangemoved Amendment No. 175:
After Clause 60. insert the following new clause—
("CHAPTER IV
WAR WIDOWS' PENSIONS
WAR WIDOWS' PENSIONS—ENTITLEMENT
.—(1) The Secretary of State shall review the operation of this section when—

(a) a report on the armed forces pension scheme has been laid before Parliament by the Secretary of State for Defence; and

(b) the results of any public consultation upon a report as cited in paragraph (a) above have been published;

and a report of any review carried out under this section shall he laid before Parliament.
(2) Subject to subsection (3), a widow in receipt of a widow's pension under any of the enactments mentioned in subsection (4) ("the DSS pension") and in receipt of a pension paid under the Armed Forces Pension Scheme shall on remarriage or when living together as husband and wife with a member of the opposite sex only retain the Forces Family Pension (attributable).
(3) Subsection (2) does not apply to a widow in receipt of a basic pension under section 44 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992; and a widow in receipt of such a pension who has remarried or is living together as husband and wife with a member of the opposite sex may not retain the Forces Family Pension (attributable).
(4) The enactments referred to in subsection (2) are—

(a) the Naval, Military and Air Forces etc. (Disablement and Death) Service Pensions Order 1983, and any order reenacting the provisions of that order,

(b) the Personal Injuries (Civilians) Scheme 1983, and any subsequent scheme made under the Personal Injuries (Emergency Provisions) Act 1939,

(c) any scheme made under the Pensions (Navy, Army, Air Force and Mercantile Marine) Act 1939, or the Polish Resettlement Act 1947 applying the provisions of any such order as is referred to in paragraph (a),

(d) the order made under section 1(5) of the Ulster Defence Regiment Act 1969 concerning pensions and other grants in respect of disablement or death due to service in the Ulster Defence Regiment.").

The noble Baroness said: This amendment puts me fair and square on the horns of a dilemma. I do not know what sort of animal a dilemma is, but I suspect it closely resembles a patchwork, painted, fibreglass cow. A friend of mine jumped on one in Florida last week to celebrate her eightieth birthday and cracked her ribs most painfully. Although not as spry as an 80 year-old, I feel that with this amendment I am being pressed very closely by the dilemma's horns.
On the one hand this amendment refers to the Armed Forces family attributable pension, which is created by prerogatory instrument and is totally in the domain of the Ministry of Defence. To move it at all in a Bill on social security is therefore irrelevant—and unfair to my noble friend the Minister, who already has a massive Bill on her plate. She has always been a warm and sympathetic friend to the war widows and I hope will continue to be so—as she is to me.
What makes it worse is something which I discovered only on Thursday: that my noble friend the Minister of State for Defence, Lady Symons of Vernham Dean, is unavoidably away in Washington today and so is unable to answer for her department. That is one horn of the dilemma. It is aggravated by the

495
fact that, even now, the Ministry of Defence is conducting its pension review which should come out this summer. Whether summer starts on May Day or when the cuckoo singeth loud or whether we should "cast no cloots till May be oot" or whether summer is some late, movable feast which waits for the House to rise before deliberations are announced, as has happened before, I do not know. I am a natural optimist and I know that the Ministry of Defence will consider the case of these few ladies with care and with sympathy.
Some of these ladies, however—and this is the other horn of the dilemma—would like to remarry. I know of at least 10 who would. With the splendid advent of the Prime Minister's baby, we are all thinking about babies. Perhaps these ladies have children who would like to have a baby brother or sister themselves. This second pension has been contributed to by their husband. Both the Royal British Legion and SSAFA support us in our belief that this pension should be for life.
I know that this is not the time or the place to move the amendment, but these ladies are not proud, arrogant and pushing themselves forward. They are gentle, brave and restrained. I have a clear duty to them to move the amendment so that others can speak on their behalf. I beg to move.
Baroness Fookes: This amendment stands also in my name. I am very anxious indeed to see justice done to this small group of ladies about whom the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, speaks so eloquently, as she has done for many years. Like her, I appreciate that this is not strictly a matter for the noble Baroness; none the less it is an opportunity to state the case once again and also, through the medium of this Chamber, to urge upon the Ministry of Defence the absolute necessity of coming to a decision on their behalf quickly. I am increasingly concerned about the length of time reviews take. It seems to be becoming a substitute for action. I hope therefore that, at the very least, we can urge upon those who represent the Ministry of Defence the necessity for coming to a decision quickly and in favour of these war widows.
Perhaps I should explain that I have no financial interest but I am a vice-president of SSAFA, which has urgently called for action to be taken. I am also newly appointed as a vice-president of the War Widows Association, of which the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, is president. Slightly strange, you may think, since I am neither wife nor widow; but it is a very important post which I take seriously. I do urge upon the House the importance of looking with sympathy and concern upon the plight of these very few war widows who, in my view, have such a strong case.
Lord Astor of Hever: I strongly support this amendment, so eloquently and clearly moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Strange. The noble Baroness told the House last year that she would return to fight another day, and I am delighted that she has. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, and my noble friend Lady Fookes, I have considerable sympathy for the
496
position in which the Minister finds herself. I know that in opposition and in government she has campaigned long and hard for war widows.
It is a tragic fact that death can come to very young service personnel. These are not just faceless people. The soldier who drove me throughout my tour of duty in Northern Ireland, Trooper Durber, was subsequently killed there, aged only 26. He left a widow and two young children. Death can also come from the most unexpected quarter. In 1982 a bomb killed an officer, a warrant officer, two soldiers and seven horses in Hyde Park. I had served with the warrant officer, Corporal Major Bright. He left a widow and two children.
Over the last year this country has had troops—unarguably the best in the world—on active duty in high-risk locations such as Iraq, East Timor, Bosnia, Kosovo, and now Sierra Leone. The Government are responsible for their safety while they are there but also, in the event of any of them being Idled, for their widows.
The question therefore arises of how we as a country look after the widows in a compassionate and responsible way. The answer is quite well, so long as they remain single for the rest of their lives. As soon as they remarry or cohabit, they lose every penny of their pension. We make it financial suicide for them to rebuild their lives and provide stable family units. Their children will not have the chance to belong to a loving family unit again. This really cannot be right.
Every independent review has recommended a pension for life. Hopefully, the Armed Forces pension review will report soon. Were the noble Baroness, Lady Symons of Vernham Dean, here today, she might have been able to tell the House the date. Even Mr Jeffrey Rooker, the Minister in the other place, has now accepted that there would be minimal cost implications in accepting this amendment. I therefore hope that the noble Baroness will do so.
Lord Craig of Radley: After what has just been said by the noble Lord and by the two noble Baronesses, it does not rest with me to try to make the case further. However, I should like it on record that I have strongly supported this particular proposition for a long time. The situation has seemed to me quite inequitable and I very much hope that, even if it cannot be found a place in this Bill, action will be taken to put right a longstanding and iniquitous wrong.
Earl Russell: I express my regrets to the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, that neither my name nor that of my noble friend Lord Goodhart is on her amendment. Our problem was that we both wished to put our names on the amendment. It took us the immense length of time of 24 hours after Second Reading to resolve that. By the end of those 24 hours there were no spaces left on the amendment. I ask the noble Baroness to accept both our names as being there in spirit.

497
We on these Benches are firmly committed to this amendment and have been so committed for a long time. I say "for a long time". We have been debating the issue for a very long time. An overwhelming case has been made out for it many times over. We have been given assurances that it is under review many times over. It is proverbial that hope deferred maketh the heart grow sick. If the noble Baroness is feeling more than a little impatient for the conclusion of these reviews, I would not be surprised.
I take her points about the flexibility of summer and, in the light of the present state of our climate, one begins to wonder whether summer will in fact ever arrive. I hope that something will happen about this quickly, therefore.
The position taken hitherto by the Ministry of Defence is completely out of date with modern views about the status of women. As I understand the ministry's thinking, it is that if a woman is being kept by one man she need not be kept by another man. That is completely out of date. The pension should not be seen simply as the substitute for a man. It should be seen as a compensation for a loss, for suffering, and for a loss incurred in the Crown's service.
Whenever this matter is debated, we hear a great deal about the problem of ring-fencing. I do not believe that to be nearly as difficult as it is made out to be. If officials make out that it is too difficult to cope with, I cannot help thinking that they underrate their own ingenuity. The category of those who are in the Crown's service, in jobs that necessarily incur danger, is limited. However, service in the Armed Forces does incur some danger even in peacetime. Many things have to be done on manoeuvres where some risk is necessarily inherent; indeed, very sadly, some deaths may happen even in carefully and properly planned manoeuvres. So these are deaths in the service of the Crown. If the Crown wants to be loyally served, it must recognise that fact.
There are problems in the Armed Forces now, with recruitment and, even more so, with retention. The armed services have a considerable struggle in adapting to a world in which women have independent careers. They cannot follow their husbands around the globe because they have interests, bases and prospects of their own. That is just one sub-set of the need of the MoD to come to terms with such social change. If it does not do so, all our Armed Forces will be in danger. I conclude by quoting from a letter written by Lord Howard of Effingham to Lord Treasurer Burghley on the day that the Spanish Armada was sighted off the Lizard:
"God send Her Majesty not now to stay for charges".
4.30 p.m.
Lord Alli: I rise to express my support for this amendment. I should like to associate myself with all the previous speakers in this respect. I believe that a pension should be for life and that these widows are being treated badly. However, I should like to turn to the question of co-habiting partners and to those who
498
lose a partner in service. In the debate last October, the noble Baroness raised the case of a pilot who lost his life in service. He left a fiancée who was expecting their first child but who was not entitled to a pension.
I believe that we should review the arrangements for co-habiting partners. Indeed, this seems to be an ideal opportunity to do so. There is much to be learnt from the private sector where the rules as regards cohabitation are much better than those which apply to the public sector; for example, some 75 per cent of pension schemes in the private sector recognise the rights of co-habiting couples. I urge my noble friend the Minister to look at this area in more detail to see what can be done for co-habiting partners.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: For the benefit of noble Lords who are fairly new to this place, I should explain that I have a special interest in these matters because I preceded the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, in her job at the Department of Social Security and was the Minister with responsibility for war pensions. I am pretty certain that I could give the Committee a preview of the Minister's speech, having made it myself on a number of occasions. I suspect that the noble Baroness will be as unhappy in delivering that speech as I was on the occasions that I had to deliver it. I was successful on all those occasions in persuading this Chamber not to take the matter to a vote, although, as noble Lords may recall, I was less successful on one or two war pensions issues and was defeated by the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, and her large army of supporters. I shall return to that point presently.
Before the commencement of this debate I checked my file and came across an important letter from the MoD. It was written by the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, a certain Dr John Reid and thus noble Lords will realise that the letter is not exactly of yesterday's vintage. In the letter, Dr Reid says that the,
"Government has commissioned a comprehensive review of the arrangements for the payment of compensation to Service personnel or their dependants, for injury, illness, or death as a result of their military service … Experience from the Gulf conflict and operations in Bosnia underlines the need for arrangements which properly reflect the special nature of the commitment which Service men and women make to the defence of our country".
I should have been quite happy with that and, indeed, with the advice that the noble Baroness will undoubtedly give noble Lords—namely, to await the outcome of that review—but then I noticed that the letter was dated 8th December 1997. That review has been a long time in coming.
I must repeat the important point that I have made in this Chamber on a number of occasions. Thanks to pension splitting on divorce, which was taken through this place by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, and which followed a White Paper that I presented to the House before the 1997 election, we have the following anomalous position. Let us take, for example, two service families who live side by side. One of those couples may divorce and the wife will be able to claim a portion of the pension pot of her former husband. The husband in the other family may be killed, leaving his

499
wife with a widow's pension which I, and war widows, accept is a generous one. So both women would, so to speak, be alone without husbands.
However, if both women decided to remarry, the divorced woman would keep her share of the pension pot and be able to translate it into a pension when she reached retirement, but the widow would lose hers. That cannot be fair. In my view, the way that we have treated war widows on remarriage has never been fair. It is particularly unfair when both the Government and the Opposition agree that we have made the situation regarding widows' pensions in the military even more ludicrous by way of the pension splitting on divorce.
On the last occasion that we debated this issue, much was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Symons of Vernham Dean, of the read-across factor. Indeed, so much was made of it that I actually wondered whether the scale of read-across was pretty well equal; in other words, that as many people in the other services of the Crown and of the community are likely to be killed in the line of duty as applies to military personnel. Therefore, I have tabled some Questions on this, relating to "service-attributable deaths" in each of the past five years. In November 1999, the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, replied, and informed me that the total number of "attributable deaths" in the Armed Forces was 138. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, replied regarding the fire service where, of course, dangers are encountered daily. The total number of deaths in that service during those years was 13. The noble Lord also informed me that the total number of deaths in the police service was 28, of whom, rather worryingly, 21 were killed in road accidents.
It appears from that information that the scale of attributable deaths in the military is quite markedly different from the scale applying to the other services, so I do not want to hear about the read-across. I have a second argument against the latter. I have in mind the fact that this Chamber defeated the then government on the question of restoration of the war widows' pension on second widowhood. As far as I know, no effort has been made to extend the read-across argument to the police, the fire service or anyone else regarding the concession that the Conservative government were forced to make in this respect. Therefore, I hope that the Minister does not have mention of the read-across in her speech and that any such mention has been removed.
Those are the main arguments that I wish to put before the Committee, but. I have just one further point to make. When we discussed this issue last year, I suggested to the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, that she should withdraw her amendment so as to allow the MoD to move quicker. However, we are a year on and nothing much has happened. Indeed, this matter has been debated since 1994. The arguments that I put before noble Lords during the years before the election were, "Just wait! The MoD is reviewing the situation. All will be well; it will come up with a conclusion". The only thing that will force the MoD to come forward
500
with a conclusion is for noble Lords to defeat the Government and insist on this new clause being inserted into the Bill—
Lord Alli: I hope that I may ask a simple question: why did not the noble Lord do this when he was in office?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I thought that I had explained that, but the noble Lord was not present when I did so. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, I was the Minister responsible for social security and I had to deal with the MoD on this issue. I have no doubt that the noble Baroness will have written a few letters to the MoD on this matter; T wrote a few myself. However, all the response I obtained was that there was a review. That is the short answer. Therefore I am aware of the prevarication that arises. I suspect that the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, is as convinced as I was with regard to this issue. However, the only way that the noble Baroness will be given a sword in her hand is through this Chamber putting the amendment on the face of the Bill. Contrary to the advice I gave last year, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, will press her amendment to a Division and that Members on all sides of the Committee will support it.
Lord Renton: It comes as no surprise that perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, and, at one time, my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, with their ministerial responsibilities had it in mind that they had to be fair to widows other than war widows. However, my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish and others who have spoken have already pointed out that war widows are in a more difficult and, indeed, often a more desperate position. I hope that I may emphasise the reasons for that. I do not think that it is unjustifiable to attempt to generalise. One reason is that war widows are nearly always younger than other widows. Another reason is that they and their late husbands have had less chance to build up some savings for their retirement. As has been mentioned, war widows are often left with young families and no husband to support them. They must do their best for their families. If we were to evade the proposals put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, we would place war widows at a disadvantage which they do not deserve. Therefore I, too, earnestly hope that the Government will be sympathetic towards her amendment.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I am sure we are all sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Symons of Vernham Dean, who is the Minister responsible for defence, is not present. However, I remind the Committee that the Long Title of the Bill includes the following words:
"to amend the law relating to occupational and personal pensions and war pensions".
This Bill is about war pensions. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, who is the Minister responsible for social security, speaks for the whole Government when she replies to this Bill. Therefore we do not want to be told that because the Minister

501
responsible for defence cannot be present this is an inappropriate matter to discuss. I hope that the Minister will not persuade the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, to withdraw her amendment. I believe that it is perfectly appropriate to move this important amendment at this stage. I shall support it if the noble Baroness presses it to a Division.
Lord Davies of Coity: I certainly applaud the confession of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, when he expressed regret at sentiments that he had expressed on this issue in the past from the Front Bench of the previous government. Nevertheless I do not believe that the argument he proposes with regard to the Ministry of Defence and the Department of Social Security holds as much water as he thinks. At the end of the day Cabinet decisions and government decisions are taken. I suspect that the Government adopt exactly the same stance as did the government of which the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, was a member, and for exactly the same reasons. Therefore I expect Members of the Committee on the Benches opposite to act tonight as they did when they were in government and support the Government on this issue.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Elton: I did not intend to speak but I was astonished to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Coity, has just said. It is only noble Lords on the Front Bench who have any official capacity in this debate. The rest of us are free to do what we like. It is not the case that everyone who has held office must think that they have always been right and that if they were wrong they must still maintain that position. My noble friend has described a situation with which I am familiar. About a decade before the time of which my noble friend spoke I sat in that rather dreary office in Alexander Fleming House and faced the same problems. Interdepartmental squabbles are nothing whatever to do with this Chamber, or with the Front Bench opposite because the Front Bench opposite answers for the Government. As the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Coity, has rightly said, the issue we are discussing is one to be resolved in Cabinet. The function of Parliament is to control the executive, not to give it free rein. If it needs a steer, I should have thought that the Committee is in a good position to do so this afternoon.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Support for the amendment has been expressed on three sides of the Chamber, and, indeed, from this side. I lend my voice to that support. I should not want it to be thought that the Labour Benches were not sympathetic to the aims of the amendment. I know that many of my noble friends on these Benches are indeed sympathetic to those aims. I sincerely hope that we can achieve them. My noble friend was certainly in favour of this kind of amendment when we were in opposition. I feel sure that she has not changed her mind. Even if my noble friend cannot accept the amendment, will she give all sides of the Chamber,
502
including these Benches, an assurance that before we conclude all stages of the Bill a provision can be inserted in the Bill, either by herself or by someone else, that will achieve the objective of the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Strange?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The proposed new clause raises an issue that was debated last year during the passage of the then Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill. As the Committee has noticed, it was not then—as it is now—a matter for the DSS, but for the MoD. At that time my noble friend Lady Symons explained that the Government have enormous sympathy for the widows who would achieve a lifetime award of a pension as proposed in the amendment. She sends her apologies to the Committee. As has been said, she is in Washington on government business and regrets—as I do, obviously—that the amendment is having to be discussed in her inevitable absence. This longstanding engagement is one that she cannot break. However, we are only at Committee stage, we still have the Report and Third Reading stages. As my noble friend will certainly be present at those later stages to discuss noble Lords' concerns and will perhaps be able to respond to them in greater detail than I can tonight—
Lord Astor of Hever: Does not the Minister accept that she is answering for the Government at this point?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Yes, but the Bill concerns DSS pensions and the pension we are now discussing is an MoD attributable war pension. Of course I speak on behalf of the Government. However, the whole push of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, was that the department that has to be persuaded of the merits of the amendment is the MoD. I therefore expressed, perfectly properly, my regrets and those of my noble friend that she cannot be present this evening. I suggest that Members of the Committee may consider it prudent to put their arguments to my noble friend when she is present at Report or subsequent stages of the Bill. I note that two noble Lords wish to speak. I give way to either or both.
Lord Elton: I do not wish to be unpleasant or personal; I am speaking about offices, not people. The proceedings of the House were adjourned this afternoon because the Minister was not able to be in the Chamber when the Committee wished to proceed with business. For her to then argue that any decision on the business in hand should be deferred because another member of the Government—who shares that responsibility, but not the responsibility of the Dispatch Box—cannot be here to answer in person is beginning to make the House of Lords look as though it is dependent on the convenience of government Ministers in order to pursue its business. I am sure that is not the noble Baroness's intention. I repeat that there is nothing personal in this, but we have to defend the dignity of the House—and that is now in issue.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I shall be a little gentler than my noble friend, who makes a valid point. If we are to be asked to wait until the noble Baroness, Lady Symons of Vernham Dean, can be here, either on Report or at Third Reading, can we have a guarantee that we shall hear, not that there is to be another review, but that she will come forward with an amendment that will do what the Committee wishes to be done?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Perhaps I may return to this point later. Let me carry on with what I was going to say and let us see whether it deals with the points raised.
As I said, my noble friend explained last summer that the MoD is currently undertaking a review of the Armed Forces pension scheme. I understand that an announcement is due to be made during the summer. The review will include consultation with all parties with an interest in the pension arrangements for the Armed Forces. I am sure that those who speak for the War Widows Association will put their case eloquently and forcefully, as has been demonstrated today.
The review of the Armed Forces pension scheme has to be wide ranging and comprehensive. There are many different pension schemes in the public and private sectors and we need to consider how the best elements of these schemes can be incorporated into providing a pension scheme that meets the needs of all servicemen and women. As the Committee will know, in many respects private sector schemes are nowadays very different from public sector schemes; they have different arrangements for widows who remarry and, to respond to the point made by my noble friend Lord Alli, they have different arrangements for trustees, for example, to allow named dependants—including same-sex partners—to inherit a widow's pension. So there are obviously those considerations. As I say, we need to see how the best of those schemes can be incorporated into building a pension scheme that meets the needs of all servicemen and women.
In his remarks, the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, made two points in particular. First, he said that this was unfair to the widows of servicemen when compared to the pension sharing of divorced wives. It is true that, under pension sharing, pension rights are to he treated as property and that a divorced wife will keep her pension share, regardless of whether she remarries later. But she will not necessarily be better off. The widow whose husband dies as a result of service receives an attributable pension, which is paid at a higher rate than the normal Armed Forces pension as it includes an element of compensation. So it is more generous than a divorced wife would get from a share of her husband's occupational scheme. Secondly, a widow receives a pension from the time of her husband's death, whereas a divorcee would have to wait. Thirdly, of course, even 'when a widow remarries the pension that she would get for her children—which is again relatively generous, and rightly so—continues.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Before the noble Baroness leaves that point, I do not think that she has put up a good argument. While of course a divorcee will have to wait until she reaches retirement age to receive the pension, she will still receive the pension even if she remarries. The lady whose husband is killed in action loses her pension for ever the moment she remarries—unless, of course, she is widowed for a second time. But she will lose it for ever as far as her marriage to the serviceman is concerned. Even though I accept that her pension starts immediately and is, rightly, far better than that of a divorcee, that does not alter the fact that a divorcee keeps the pension on second marriage.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Yes, but the widow, of course—as your Lordships expressed against the advice of the noble Lord on an earlier occasion—is able to regain it following, possibly, the end of a second marriage. That was a decision of your Lordships.
The point I was making is that that is one of the reasons why the war widows' pension is more generous than the settlement of a divorced wife of a serviceman. It reflects the different circumstances in which she finds herself, including the fact that she loses her pension on remarriage. However, she keeps the pension for the children. I do not think we disagree on those facts.
The second point of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay—from his experience as a former Minister for war pensions—challenged the notion of the costs involved. We know, for example, that if we were to ring-fence a figure it would be based on something like 2,500 war widows below the age of 60. Based on their historical remarriage rates—I am sorry to use such a cold phrase—the additional costs would be about £3 million per year, but buying back the superannuation liability in retrospection would cost some £400 million a year. The read-across to the public service—including the fire service, the police and so on, as the noble Lord suggested—would cost about £150 million a year. Again, if it were to be made retrospective, the cost would grow. In other words, the cost for the narrow group ring-fenced in this amendment is relatively modest, but I do not think that it would be right or proper to confine any such amendment to that very narrow group. Despite what the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, said, the read-across costs are quite significant.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am grateful to the noble Baroness. There is a point relating to the read-across which she has not addressed. She has made no attempt to argue the read-across on the pension being restored on second widowhood, as far as I know. If it has been ascertained, I should be interested to hear it. That is a major point. I urge caution on the noble Baroness. I remember the figures I used for restoration on second marriage, all cleverly obtained by the Treasury. The noble Baroness herself, in her usual very able way, rubbished my figures to such an extent that I went back and had them checked in my presence.

505
Frankly, the figures were out of all proportion to the £40 million that restoration actually costs. So I do not, frankly, believe the figure of £400 million.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: It is £40 million. The noble Lord is quite right. None the less, the read-across to the rest of the public sector is calculated to be £150 million. I think it was the figure that the noble Lord gave to the House when he was on these Benches. He has said nothing today to suggest that those figures are not correct.
We believe that if we are making provision for one group of people, it is right that others should be considered; in other words, there is a wide Treasury interest as well as an MoD interest. The Armed Forces pension review is working with other pension providers to ensure that, where appropriate, the Government's approach to pension provision is fair and even-handed.
The Committee has put its points strongly. Those points have been heard by the Government in this Chamber and in another place. I am asking the Committee to wait for a few more weeks until the review has been completed and my noble friend the Minister who answers for Defence in your Lordships' House—who is, unfortunately, absent today—is in a position to respond in the kind of detail that the House and the War Widows Association have a right to expect. As I said, we are at Committee stage now; we have a Report stage and a Third Reading to go. I ask my noble friend Lady Strange—I call her my noble friend because we have together, on many occasions, tried to do our best for war widows and for the War Widows Association—to withdraw her amendment. I shall ensure that the MoD receives the concerns of the Committee and that my noble friend is fully briefed should we wish to return to this at Report stage.
I suggest that with a review to be published by the MoD only a matter of a few weeks away, which will then go out to consultation, it would not be appropriate for the Committee to pre-empt that review and that consultation exercise. As I say, that will come before your Lordships' House at the appropriate time. The Committee will be in a better position to make an informed decision as to how this matter should progress after my noble friend has returned and after the forthcoming review and the consultation that will follow it. In the light of that, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Lord Elton: Before the noble Baroness sits down, I shall do nothing to persuade the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, to stay her hand today. It would be easier for her to come to a conclusion if the Minister, who has held forth inducements to delay—including the expected return of her noble friend, a review, and a consultation on that review—could tell us what stage the Bill will have reached by the time the consultation is concluded so that we know what the Government are going to do. Will it be on Report or at Third Reading? If the Minister cannot answer "Yes" to either, I see no reason to wait at all.
5 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: If a review is to be published in the next few weeks—in June is my understanding—and with the possibility that the Bill will have concluded its stages in your Lordships' House by the end of July, is the noble Lord really suggesting that the consultation exercise, which involves full consultation with all the servicemen's organisations, the War Widows Association and possibly other organisations as well, should be compressed into the space of two, three or four weeks in order to meet that request? That would make a mockery of the consultation. The organisations out there, for which noble Lords have spoken today, have a right to be heard.
Lord Elton: I have made no such suggestion. Unless something very unusual happens, we will not prorogue before November. We have the whole of the spill-over for Third Reading. This is a Bill brought from the Commons. It has no further stages there except consideration of our amendments to it. I am suggesting nothing extraordinary or hasty but simply that we should know that the House's decision will not be deferred beyond the point at which the noble Baroness's arguments cease to have force.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: It will be in your Lordships' hands as to when the Bill leaves your Lordships' House. I am saying that the review is due to be published in the next few weeks. Those are the words I have been given and I have no reason to believe that there has been any slippage on that. As a result, it will then go out to consultation. I cannot tell the noble Lord how long is envisaged for that consultation exercise. It is usually a minimum of three months, particularly over a summer period possibly when members of organisations may well be away. But it would not be unreasonable for your Lordships to have that information in mind. Clearly, in the light of what the noble Lord has said, it would be up to the MoD to try to expedite the consultation exercise. However, given that this is such an important matter, with such read-across effects to other public sector bodies, it would not be reasonable to compress that consultation in order to meet the timetable here today.
Different stages of the Bill are due to be taken. If your Lordships are not happy with the review and the consultation exercise and the MoD and government response to it, there is ample opportunity for your Lordships to revisit the issue. But I would hope that when the review is published and goes out to consultation it will embody positions which your Lordships might feel address some of the concerns expressed today. As a result, your Lordships might wish, in an individual capacity or representing organisations, to put forward evidence to that effect. As a result, that would carry extra weight with the Government. That is the point I was making about timetables.
Lord Elton: The noble Baroness made the point that we would be able to return to the issue after those processes were completed. The point that I hope your Lordships have seized is that there will be no ability to return to it effectively if the Bill is already on the statute book. All I am asking the noble Baroness is whether the reasons she is offering us for delay are valid, because if the processes she has described are complete after the Bill is out of our hands, they are not relevant.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am in a dilemma here, too. Your Lordships know perfectly well—certainly someone as experienced as the noble Lord, Lord Elton—that, if a review document is going out to consultation, there is usually agreement with the organisations concerned as to how long that consultation period will be, particularly when that consultation document is being issued over the summer. Given that, I really do not think that I can go beyond what I have already said to your Lordships.
I wish to make one final remark. At the end of the day, I am not arguing about the merits or otherwise of the proposal. That argument has been well addressed and aired in previous discussions in your Lordships' House. What I am saying is that, with a review document due to come forth fairly quickly and with the consultation process following, it is not in my view appropriate for your Lordships to seek to prejudge the issue. Your Lordships are entirely free to do so, but it would seem to be wise to respect the nature of a consultation exercise, which, as I have said, I would expect to take place over the summer.
Lord Carter: Perhaps I may help the Committee on this point. I clearly do not wish to discuss from the Dispatch Box the timing of Bills but the fact is that there is a legal requirement for certain Bills before the House—for example, the Terrorism Bill—to receive their Royal Assent by the Summer Recess. With regard to other Bills, like this one, it would be desirable but not legally essential for them to receive Royal Assent by that time. We have not yet thought of a date for Report. By the time that date becomes available and is clearer, we shall know much more about the timetable of the consultation. So your Lordships will not lose anything by accepting what my noble friend has proposed.
There will be a Report stage. When we reach the Report stage, noble Lords will know exactly the state of the consultation and the likely reporting date. If noble Lords then feel that that is too long, they can take the necessary action. If they are satisfied with that process, they might wish to deal with the matter in a different way on Report.
Lord Henley: As the Government Chief Whip has intervened, will he then go further and offer an assurance that, irrespective of the date of the Report stage, he will be able to delay the Third Reading until
508
possibly November to allow us to see both the document and the results of the consultation promised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis?
Lord Carter: That was a good try! I see some noble Lords opposite whom we do not often see here, so I understand the Opposition Chief Whip's anxiety on this matter. Obviously, I cannot say that I can delay the Third Reading until November. I have said that we have to get the Committee stage, Report and Third Reading of certain Bills by the summer and that, by the time this Bill has a date for Report stage, noble Lords will be much better informed. We can inform noble Lords about the nature of the consultation and its timetable and they can then decide at the Report stage what to do with the proposal from the noble Baroness, Lady Strange.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: Perhaps I may suggest to the Minister that there is no reason why the Committee should not express its view—incidentally, I have spoken before on this subject: I am not new to it—and let that be taken into consideration when the consultation comes along. We are surely part of that consultation. The amendment is a means of expressing our view. Moreover, we have expressed it on several earlier occasions. I shall be very interested to know what new factor might emerge, other than money and the availability or lack of it, that could change that. As far as I understand it, the Government's difficulty is very much more with the extension of the decision to a number of other deserving parts of society than with the actual issue of the MoD. That is why I think it would be wrong to forgo our chance now of expressing our view on this very limited, precise matter. We have gone over it many times before. I cannot see why we should not express our view now and have it taken into consideration in the consultation.
Baroness Strange: I do not know what to say or what to do. So many noble Lords have spoken and I thank them all. I should like to thank my noble friend Lady Fookes, who is also the vice-president of the War Widows Association, my noble friend Lord Astor of Hever, who made a moving speech, my noble and gallant friend Lord Craig of Radley, my noble kinsman Lord Russell, my noble friend Lord Alli, my noble friend and former enemy Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, my noble friend Lord Renton, my noble friend Lady Carnegy, my noble friend Lord Elton, my noble friend Lady Park of Monmouth, my noble friend Lord Stoddart of Swindon and, particularly, my noble friend Lady Hollis, who has been really sweet and has listened to absolutely everything.
I am very sorry to have to do this to her—I really am. Perhaps even now, if it could see the amount of support that there is for it, the Ministry of Defence might consider moving this small item forward in a separate agenda. I do not know that I shall even allow

509
my noble friend the Chief Whip to have another bite at the cherry. He will just have to gobble me up now. I shall cross my fingers, shut my eyes and fling myself onto the patchwork, fibreglass cow. I wish to test the opinion of the Committee.
5.10 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 175) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 143; Not-Contents, 117.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Goodhart, L.

Alderdice, L.

Hanham,B

Anelay of St. Johns, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Attlee, E.

Henley, L.

Avebury, L.

Higgins,L.

Baker of Dorking, L.

Hogg,B.

Barker, B.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Hooper, B.

Biffen,L.

Hooson, L.

Blackwell, L.

Howe, E.

Blaker, L.

Hunt of Wirral,L.

Blatch, B.

Hylton, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Bowness, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Jopling, L.

Bradshaw, L.

Kirkham, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Brigstocke, B.

Lincoln, Bp.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Luke, L.

Burnham, L.

Lyell, L.

Buscombe, B.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Byford, B.

McConnell, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L

Campbell of Croy, L.

Maddock, B.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Chadlington, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Clement-Jones, L.

Monson, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Montrose, D.

Colwyn, L.

Moore of Lower Marsh, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Courtown, E.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Cowdrey of Tonbridge, L.

Naseby, L.

Cox, B.

Newby, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Nickson, L.

Cranborne, V.

Northbrook, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Northesk, E.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Denham, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Dholakia, L.

Onslow, E.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Eden of Winton, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Elles, B.

Palmer, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Elton, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Enroll, E.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Ezra, L.

Prior, L.

Fookes,B.[Teller]

Quinton, L.

Freeman, L.

Reay, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Redesdale, L.

Geddes, L.

Rees, L.

Geraint, L.

Rennard, L

Gilmourof Craigmillar, L.

Renton, L.

Glentoran, L.

Rix, L.

510

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Strange, B. [Teller]

Roll of Ipsden, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Roper, L.

Swinfen, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Taverne, L.

Russell, E.

Tebbit,L.

Saltoun of Abemethy, Ly.

Tenby, V.

Sandberg, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Tordoff, L.

Seccombe, B.

Trefgame, L.

Sharpies, B.

Waddington, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Waverley, V.

Shutt of Greetland, L

Wilberforce, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Stern, B.

Windlesham, L.

Stewartby, L.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ahmed, L.

Hogg of Cumbemauld, L.

Alii, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Amos, B.

Howells of St Davids, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Hoyle, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Bach,L.

Hunt of Chesterton, L.

Barnett, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Berkeley, L.

Billingham, B.

Islwyn, L.

Blackstone, B.

Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord Privy Seal)

Blease, L.

Borrie, L.

Jeger, B.

Bragg, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Brennan, L.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Brett, L.

Layard, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Brookman, L.

Lipsey, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Burlison, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Carter, L.[Teller]

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Christopher, L.

Mclntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Mclntosh of Hudnall, B.

Crawley, B.

MacKenzieof Culkein, L.

David, B.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Desai, L.

Molloy, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Dubs, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Eatwell, L.

Nicol, B.

Elder, L.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Paul, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Evans of Watford, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Puttnam, L.

Filkin, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Gale, B.

Rea, L.

Gavron, L.

RendellofBabergh, B.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Gilbert, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Serota, B.

Goldsmith, L.

Shore of Stepney, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Simon, V.

Goudie, B.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Grabiner, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Grenfell, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Thornton, B.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Harrison, L.

Uddin, B.

Haskel, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Hayman, B.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

511

Whitaker, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Wilkins, B.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Williams of Elvel. L.

Young of Old Scone, B

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
5.20 p.m.
Clause 61 [Loss of benefit for breach of community order]:
[Amendment No. 176 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
On Question, Whether Clause 61 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Windlesham: In speaking to the question of whether Clause 61 should stand part of the Bill, I will speak also to the subsequent Motions on whether Clauses 62, 63, 64 and 65 should stand part of the Bill.
These clauses are controversial. If they are enacted, they will authorise loss of benefit for an alleged breach of a community order. The Government's proposals were strongly criticised on all sides of the House at Second Reading. Since then, as the full significance of what is proposed has become apparent, the opposition has intensified.
So what is so unusual and objectionable about these clauses? Put simply, it is that the procedure put forward by the Government confuses administrative practice—that is, the conditions that apply to entitlement to, or disqualification from, social security benefit—with the sentencing of offenders. Entitlement to benefit is based on need. Needs do not change when conditions of community orders are not observed.
A probation order or community service order is—there should be no mistake about it—a non-custodial penalty. It is at the discretion of the court to decide, once guilt has been established, whether an offender convicted of a less serious offence is sentenced to a term of imprisonment, or receives a fine, or whether that person is sentenced to a community penalty. If sentenced to a community penalty, the offender will be subject to supervision by a probation officer who has the responsibility to see that the sentence of the court is properly carried out. If, for example, the offender fails to report regularly, or does not carry out allocated tasks of community service, after one warning he or she will be at risk of being taken back to the court. Enforcement of community orders by the Probation Service has recently been strengthened. A great deal of work has been done to that end. Two independent surveys have indicated the scale of the improvement that has taken place over the past 12 months. Just a few weeks ago, the Minister of State at the Home Office, Paul Boateng, congratulated the Association of Chief Officers of Probation on the improvements that had been made in enforcement by the service.
The crucial point to keep in mind is that the decision on whether there has been a breach is taken not by the probation officer; it is taken by the court after a judicial hearing. The court may be satisfied that there is a reasonable explanation, and may continue the
512
order. It may, and in many cases does, agree to the withdrawal of the application by the Probation Service because new information has come to light since the original notification of breach. It may revoke the order and re-sentence either to custody or to a further non-custodial penalty.
I rehearse the sequence of events, which will be familiar to some but not all Members of the Committee, because it is into this well-established legal order, statutory and evolutionary, that the Department of Social Security has blundered. One is bound to ask why, unlike other proposals for the reorganisation of the Probation Service which are contained in the Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill currently before Parliament, there has been no prior public consultation or discussion with the services affected. The proposal came as a complete surprise.
Loss of benefit was first announced by the Prime Minister when introducing the Government's legislative programme in another place last November. It was part of a package of six punishment-related items included in a "tough on crime" section in the Queen's Speech. Since then, every public service that will be directly affected in its implementation has gone on record as deploring the intention to withdraw or reduce social security payments as soon as an alleged—I repeat, alleged—breach of a community order is reported to a local benefit office by the Probation Service.
The highly responsible Association of Chief Officers of Probation has been joined by the National Association of Probation Officers, the Magistrates' Association, the Justices' Clerks' Society, and the Commission for Racial Equality in a rare display of unanimity. If this is a listening Government, surely Ministers have an obligation to listen, rather than to dig themselves further into what is an indefensible position.
The Penal Affairs Consortium, representing no fewer than 41 organisations concerned with the penal system, goes further than the injustice of what is proposed and describes the measure as,
"retrograde, counter-productive and bound to increase crime".
Such a perverse outcome is a real possibility if offenders who are attempting to establish themselves in a local community suddenly find that they have no money, or that their income, which is already set at a low level, is reduced. We should remind ourselves that many are drug or alcohol misusers for whom the court has decided that a period under supervision offers the best hope of overcoming their addiction, so reducing the prospect of further offending in future. For them, as for many others, whether caused by impoverishment, recklessness or resentment, reoffending is often impulsive and irrational.
Since deterrence—which it seems the Government had in mind in introducing the proposal—depends on rational calculation, it will be at its least effective in such circumstances. The idea of sending messages by way of legislation is simply absurd. It is impossible to avoid the conclusion that the full implications of the

513
proposal were not properly thought out before it was announced. Since then, the Government seem to have had difficulty in comprehending why the clauses are wrong in principle and likely to prove counter-productive in practice.
The intention of my noble friends, if I may so describe them in different parts of the Committee, is to provide an opportunity for the Government to hear at first hand from those who have experience of the workings of the penal system just why these clauses are so objectionable, and to give them an opportunity to reconsider.
5.30 p.m.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: I have put my name to a number of amendments because of my profound concerns about these proposals. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, that these provisions are an attack on the poor. They create a discriminatory punishment which applies only to the poorest in our society: those on benefit. This punishment will not apply to the drug-taking sons of the privileged or the shoplifting wives of the well-to-do who are in breach of community orders. It is a double punishment, and the inherent unfairness of it is wrong in principle. It is an extraordinary departure. In addition to the courts, a department of state will now mete out punishment. The Secretary of State, Mr Alistair Darling, is to dress himself up in the clothes of the Lord Chancellor.
I was worried because perhaps this was the new big idea of government. In a moment of reverie, I imagined the development of that idea into other areas. Perhaps next month child benefit will be stopped if children are taken on holiday in term time, or tax relief will be reduced if one's dog fouls the pavement. This matter should concern the Committee. The proposal represents an unacceptable cross-over between different arms of government. The "Big Brother" quality of this thinking should create alarm and despondency. People should not be duped into thinking that it is a reasonable response to anti-social behaviour. The proposals are an affront to human rights not only because they are discriminatory but because they punish in advance of conviction. They breach Articles 6, 7 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act which is to come into force in the autumn. I believe that in particular cases other articles will also be violated; for example, when the punishment impacts on the children of offenders.
On the previous occasion when the Committee debated these provisions the Minister disagreed with me when I said that women and children would be affected. I took the opportunity to discover whether my fears about the effect on women and children were unfounded. Eleven per cent of those on community sentences are women. It is believed by the agencies involved that two-thirds of those women have children. For example, a single parent with one child would face a reduction in benefit from £90 to £70 a week, which would be a minimal benefit. I ask the Committee to consider what effect that would have on
514
the ability of an individual to cope. Last but not least, this measure is a sure-fire way to increase crime. It takes little imagination to envisage what people may do when they lose a significant proportion of their income. This proposal will increase the temptation to steal, burgle, solicit for prostitution or sell drugs—all the matters about which we are so concerned.
I am sure that initially many members of the public would regard this as a sensible proposal to prevent people who had been placed on probation or other community service orders from cocking a snook at the system and failing to fulfil their obligations. However, the proper way to deal with breaches of court orders is to bring people back before the courts. In that way a proper judgment can be made as to whether a breach has occurred. In my experience—I have spent 25 years in the courts—often poor people who are placed on probation have a multiplicity of social problems.
One of the purposes of a community order is rehabilitation and to bring a degree of order into lives which sometimes have become chaotic. The purpose is to help people who are trying to kick a drug habit or alcoholism to cope so that eventually they can return to work or to training and play a part in society. But that takes time, and in the early stages people can find it very challenging. To get one's children up for school in such circumstances can be hard. One may miss an appointment because one has been up all night with a child who is sick or suffers nightmares; or one may have to deal with a neighbour who has overdosed, or one may forget to set the alarm clock. Such instances taken together may result in the probation officer being obliged to refer the case back to the courts. A second failure to attend is now a ground on which the Probation Service must report back to the court.
Under this proposal there is a duty to inform the Benefits Agency. Sometimes the court finds that there is a reasonable excuse; if not, the offender is punished. That is the right way to deal with it because the court is the proper arbiter. This proposal is not in keeping with the values of a Labour government. Our principles are based on abiding values, of which I am proud. Those values are not about handouts, but about looking out for the poor and giving them ways to throw off their impoverishment, crushing discrimination wherever we see it rather than fostering it, creating equality before the law, not differentials and double punishment, and protecting citizens from unfair treatment by the state. It is not for us to become the state and to invent exquisite new ways to punish. When it comes to civil liberties, there is no third way.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: One of the advantages of Committee stage when one has not taken part in the Second Reading is that one has had an opportunity to read the speeches made on that occasion. All I can say is that, having read the speeches of my noble friend Lord Windlesham, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lincoln, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, I agree with every word that each has said. To repeat their words would be tautologous and, therefore, I intend to be brief.

515
I believe that what is proposed in these clauses is wrong in principle and that it would be wholly counter-productive in practice. First, it is wrong in principle because the withholding of benefits is used as a non-judicial means to punish and attempt to enforce the orders of the courts. Secondly, it is wrong in principle because it clearly involves a double penalty. In those cases where a breach is proved, the withdrawal or reduction of benefit is a further punishment on top of the order of the court. Thirdly, it is wrong in principle because it discriminates between those who are out of work as against those who are in work as to the form of penalty that they face. Fourthly, to impose a reduction of benefit on an allegation of breach of an order rather than on a finding of a breach is a principle that I regard as both novel and unacceptable.
As far as concerns practicality, I believe that the measure will be wholly counter-productive. The fact is that most of those who are on probation or subject to community service orders have a history of thieving and stealing of various kinds. To impose greater poverty on the poorest at that time by this measure will substantially increase the temptation for them to commit further offences. Undoubtedly many will fall to that temptation and commit further offences. Therefore, the effect in practice will be to increase rather than reduce the amount of crime.
I strongly believe that those who are in breach of a condition of a probation order, particularly a community service order, should be dealt with severely by the courts. Community service is accepted and intended to be an alternative to imprisonment, and it is right that those who breach a community service order should realise that they stand in real jeopardy of losing their liberty.
I understand that 21 per cent of those who were brought back before the courts in the past year for breach of community service went to prison. It would not worry me if that figure were far higher. I believe that they should be warned clearly of the effect. But to attempt to punish them in the way that the Bill provides is, I believe, wrong in principle and will fail in practice.
5.45 p.m.
Earl Russell: If I do not repeat what has been said in the three previous speeches, it is only because I am not addicted to the gilding of lilies.
The penal affairs case against the clause, and the attendant comet of other clauses which form its tail, is so overwhelming that, having listened to the speeches made already, any sensible government would withdraw the clause. But there is also a social security aspect. As the only social security specialist with his name to the amendment, I think that it would make sense if I concentrate on that part of the argument.
It seems as clear from the social security perspective as from the penal perspective that the effect of the proposal would be to increase crime. In the words of the Penal Affairs Consortium, pushing poor people into even greater poverty must increase the temptation
516
to steal, burgle, rob, shoplift, solicit or sell drugs. One might add that it is particularly likely to do that if those people, because they are a pre-selected sample, already have experience of crime. If we are on our uppers, we tend to rely on those skills we know. If we are criminals, the skills we know are those of crime, and the temptation to use them may be irresistible.
The Minister may tell me that that is a rebuttable presumption. If the noble Baroness tells me that, I shall not argue with her. But I think she knows that she is in no position to rebut it because she and her predecessors have failed conspicuously to collect the evidence upon which it might be rebutted. We have no significant body of evidence on how those who are disentitled to benefit make a living. The Minister knows that I have questioned her and her predecessors on this issue for quite a long time and have not received answers. If it were not true that the measure will increase crime, the Minister is in no position to make the case.
It is a slight exaggeration to say that the noble Baroness knows of no evidence. In a debate immediately before the Easter Recess in which my noble friend Lord Addington spoke, the Minister recommended one piece of government research: the DfEE Research Report 86 on the effect of sanctions on jobseeker's allowance. In that report I find one and a quarter pages on the effect of sanctions. It states that people experienced considerable hardship, but those who were single experienced slightly greater hardship. Doubtless the Minister will make much of hardship payments. I invite her, not for the first time, to explain why the Government believe that single people by definition cannot be in hardship. I have never understood that argument and I have never heard a coherent explanation.
The report quotes one person who had been sanctioned saying that he,
"just scraped through, but it wasn't easy at all".
It does not say how those people make a living, what sources of income were available to them, whether they were legally or illegally obtained, how far short of benefit levels they were, and what things they had to forgo in order to live. Until we know those factors we are in no position to judge the effects of benefit sanctions. Since that ignorance is the result of deliberate inaction by the Department of Social Security, I think that I am entitled to describe it as culpable negligence. Before the proposal is reintroduced, that culpable negligence must be put right.
Noble Lords have touched on the fact that the benefit is withdrawn before a hearing. I shall not soon forget the speeches made by the Minister herself against that proposal when it was introduced in the Jobseekers Act. They were some of the best speeches I have ever heard in Parliament; and I still agree with every word of them. The noble Baroness will point out that the benefit forgone can be withdrawn if the penalty were found to be mistakenly imposed. But you cannot hang your stomach on skyhooks. If your benefit is withdrawn for several weeks, you will be

517
unable to postpone eating until you get the benefit back. You have to do something in the meantime. Some of the people in that position will adopt what the Children's Society described as risky survival strategies: theft, sleeping rough, begging, drug pushing—crime of various kinds. I am advised that drug couriers can make £50 for one single trip. That must look very tempting if you do not know where your next meal is coming from. "Lead us not into temptation" is advice which might be heeded by legislators as well as others.
I am sure the Minister will say that this is not a penalty. That does not sound particularly convincing. I am reminded of the story of Kaiser Wilhelm (as he subsequently became) at the age of five being spanked by his nurse. The nurse said solemnly, "This hurts me as much as it hurts you", to which the Kaiser replied, "Oh, and in the same place?". The argument that it is not a punishment is just about as convincing as that.
However, for the sake of fair play I take the argument on the premises on which the DSS has chosen to advance it. I take it on the letter from Mr Alistair Darling in The Times of 11th May replying to letters from the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, and myself. Mr Darling said that the proposal is based on the clear principle that rights to benefits are conditional on an individual fulfilling their responsibilities to society. As the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, pointed out, that is dangerously open-ended. I am not clear what might be done in future under it.
On conditions to benefits, we need to make some distinctions. At Second Reading, the Minister said that conditions to benefits have been imposed before. Yes, they have, but we need to consider under what headings. First, in means-tested benefits there is inevitably a condition about the sufficiency of means. None of us argues about that. Secondly, there is a condition about being available for work. There is plenty of room for argument on both sides about that. On the one hand, it is a valid principle that the need can be seen, like intentional homelessness, as self-inflicted if the person is not seriously trying to get out of it. On the other hand, it is an equally valid principle that starvation is a punishment which should not be inflicted by authority in civilised society. We on these Benches have debated the issue at considerable length among ourselves on various occasions. The position we take is that since both those principles are valid in the moral plain we should judge between them according to the effects that disentitlement has. We should judge by the consequences if ever we can find what those are. Meanwhile the benefit claimant should be given the benefit of the doubt.
However, with Mr Darling's letter we are in an altogether different line of country. There is nothing in this new condition to benefit about whether the person is attempting to get work. It is not even a condition of a probation order that you should actively seek work. The condition is based simply on the fact that the Secretary of State happens to disapprove of the activity in question. Once you get into disentitlement
518
to benefit because the Secretary of State disapproves of the activity in question, you are in very dangerous country. Secretaries of State are addicted to disapproval; it is part of their professional apparatus. Once we get that far, surely we are back in the territory of the distinction between the deserving and the undeserving poor. I heard the Minister powerfully and movingly denounce that many times when she was in opposition.
The idea that some of the poor are undeserving is always tempting to those who have property. I do not believe that we should encourage it, especially when by doing so we are wandering into an area where we confuse the business of two ministries. Late last weekend, I happened purely by chance to be looking at the 13th report of the Social Security Advisory Committee. It was considering a quite different measure, but it stated a general principle which is worth thought:
"Caution is required to ensure that inter-departmental policies are compatible before making receipt of a social security benefit dependent upon satisfying a non-money related condition. Care is also needed to ensure that the introduction of additional requirements does not make the administration of social security benefits unnecessarily complex and correspondingly expensive".
There are problems here. If people lose their benefits, what will happen to their repayments of Social Fund loans? I know that they keep housing benefit, but what will happen if they are paying some of their rent out of income support? What will happen to instalment payments to the utility companies? What will happen to the £5 which they are required to pay as child maintenance if they are in receipt of income support?
If that goes, the Minister must abandon the position she took about the absolute priority of money for child maintenance. If it does not go, she must abandon the insistence she then made that she cannot imagine any situation in which people are unable to pay what they were assessed for under the Child Support Act.
The Government are not so much shooting themselves in the foot as shooting themselves in the toes one by one. It is a wistful procedure. We should stick to the basic simple principle that benefits are not given for being good; they are given for being in need.
Viscount Tenby: I rise to speak briefly in support of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, and others. I say "briefly" advisedly since the principal objections to the measure were admirably covered by the noble Lord both at Second Reading and earlier today. The logic and common sense of what he has said has been strongly reinforced from all sides of the Committee.
I shall not dwell on what the measure will do to the disadvantaged because it was much more ably expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell. However, like others, I have received representations from the Probation Service at all levels and from the Penal Affairs Consortium. In order to complement those, I have been in touch with the Magistrates' Association. Here I must declare an interest as a member of that

519
association and as a magistrate on the supplementary list. I have also been in touch with the Justices' Clerks' Society of England and Wales. In every single case, grave reservations were expressed about this extremely dubious initiative. Their concerns concentrated in the main on the leapfrogging over the due process of law; potential double punishment for the same offence for some but not for others; the implications for this country under forthcoming human rights obligations this autumn—and that despite the Minister's assurances at Second Reading—and, perhaps most importantly, the effect that it will have on the Probation Service and its delicate relationship with offenders. I could easily enlarge on that list, but the clock ticks on and the Committee stage has been long.
I have some sympathy for the Minister. She has already been under fire today under MoD rules of engagement. She is now being charged with an unauthorised poaching expedition into a territory of the law. Like many other Members of the Committee—and these are not weasel words—I have great respect for the Minister and her passionate promotion for what she believe in, but I hope that in this case she will allow me to say that it is a pretty rum do all round! It is difficult to see why the many minefields around such a proposal were not spotted well in advance. For example, unused though I am to the workings of the Whitehall machine—and I say that almost thankfully—I find it odd in the extreme that one great department of state, the Home Office, has allowed itself to be "cut up" by another, the Department of Social Security.
One simply cannot, and certainly should not, mix up the law and the executive in this way and confer powers on the executive ahead of trial. Unless my appreciation of English constitutional history is seriously flawed, that is a fundamental fact about the constitution of this country. Accordingly, I most warmly urge the Minister to think again, having heard the compelling arguments advanced tonight, and to give us all grounds for hope. Once that subtle and precious link has been broken, the first step towards possibly greater infelicities in the future will have been taken and that is a serious matter.
Lord Davies of Coity: Someone would have to be totally insensitive not to be moved and to have sympathies with the arguments expressed today. However, some of the expressions were emotive and perhaps went further than necessary. Furthermore, there was a measure of unfairness as regards the proposals put forward by the Government.
We must recognise that law and order is becoming an increasingly major problem. The observance of it is undoubtedly worsening; crime is increasing; and prisons are overcrowded. We know that in large measure community service orders are not working. We have heard comments about a penalty for the poor. The vast majority of poor people on benefit are not offenders. Certainly, the vast majority of people on benefit, poor or otherwise, are not offenders. In this provision, we are talking about people who are offenders.
520
I understood the noble Earl, Lord Russell, to say that benefit is for need and I understand that. However, we also know that from time to time there has been fairly widespread benefit fraud. Whether that is committed by people who offend in another area of crime perhaps cannot be totally quantified, but the Government want to see people subject to community service orders fulfilling their responsibilities. If they do not, they place at risk their entitlement to benefit. It is one measure in the armoury of provisions in our legal system; for example, fines, community service orders, conditional discharges or imprisonment. The last thing I would want to see is the abandonment of community service orders because we would then have to return to the issue of imprisonment.
It seems to me that this provision will not be used very easily; it will be used to try to bring about a greater degree of observance of a penalty that has been imposed by a court. If it succeeds in doing that, then of course the benefit will not be removed. I believe that this is the way in which the Government want to approach the matter. There may well be amendments to be made to the provision; nevertheless, I believe that there has been a measure of unfairness in the way that it has been described this afternoon.
6 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I remind Members of the Committee that we are legislating for Scotland as well as for the rest of the United Kingdom. I believe that the noble Lord's defence of what the Government are doing may be echoed somewhere in Scotland, but I have not yet heard it. What I have heard is very much more the line put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws.
I wish to ask the Minister one or two questions about the way in which Clause 61 in particular will operate in Scotland because I do not believe that anomalies make it any more acceptable. First, as I read the Bill, a JP will report to the Secretary of State that an offender is not carrying out a community service order properly. As Members of the Committee know, a JP in Scotland is not the same as a magistrate in England and Wales. It is the view of the Law Society of Scotland, and it is certainly my view, that the sheriff should perform that function. It is a grave matter to remove someone's benefit before it is proved that the order is being broken and for it to be done by a Scots JP. That is no reflection on JPs, but it should be done at the sheriff's court. I should be grateful if the noble Baroness would say whether that change is under consideration.
Secondly, I want to ask what happens if the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy., is right and Clause 61 becomes law in Scotland and is found in a Scottish court to be in contravention of the convention on human rights. As I understand it, if a Bill has been passed by the Scots Parliament, it can be struck down by a Scottish judge in a Scottish court. However, this will be a UK Bill. I should like to know what happens if a Scottish judge finds that it is in contravention of human rights. That could happen at any time once the Bill becomes law because the convention on human

521
rights is already incorporated in Scots law. There may be no difference. However, I should like to know the answer to that question. Certainly, I believe that the Committee needs to know whether the Bill is to be treated differently in the Scottish courts.
My final question is why there have been no pilot schemes in Scotland. The social work system in Scotland is very different from the probation system in England and Wales.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Perhaps I may help the noble Baroness on that point. Pilot schemes are proposed in the Bill. I certainly take the point that perhaps one of them should be exercised in Scotland. However, the noble Baroness is asking us to anticipate what has not yet happened.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I thank the noble Baroness and I apologise for my mistake. However, the Bill states quite clearly that there will be pilot schemes in England and Wales but not in Scotland. I should like to know whether that has anything to do with the fact that, under the Bill, one benefit which the Government propose that it should be possible to remove from an offender is the training allowance. The whole area relating to training is a matter that has been devolved to Scotland. The Bill has been altered to allow for that. I believe that Clause 61 is probably absolutely accurate. However, I wondered whether that was one reason why it was proposed not to have pilot schemes in Scotland. If it is not, then it seems to me absolutely essential that there should be pilot schemes there, and I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to answer that point.
Lord Dholakia: I welcome the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, and other noble Lords to oppose the clause. Like the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle of Bucklow, I also concur with almost everything that was said during Second Reading of the Bill.
Perhaps I may take just one thread of the arguments that have been advanced. Ethnic minorities are twice as likely as their white counterparts to be unemployed. In some areas, the proportion would be even higher. Sentencing research has already demonstrated clearly how the criminal justice system works against the interests of the minority community. This is not the place to elaborate on such researches. However, perhaps I may draw the attention of the Committee to the research conducted by Roger Hood of the Centre for Criminological Research at Oxford, which bears out what I have said.
In this country, between 15 per cent and 18 per cent of the prison population in male prisons is black and up to one in four women in British prisons is black. Why do I say that? I do so because the Commission for Racial Equality is seriously concerned about the implication that the proposal to withdraw benefits will have to the disadvantage of ethnic minorities. If they are serving a community sentence, they are more likely to be in receipt of benefits than are their white
522
counterparts. The commission is concerned also that the withdrawal of benefits will follow an alleged but not proven breach.
The commission wrote to the Minister, Alistair Darling MP, about its concern, particularly in relation to the aims of the Race Relations (Amendment) Bill, about which we had a substantial discussion in this House, and the aim of the amendment approved by the Government. The Bill extends the Race Relations Act 1976 to those functions of public authorities that currently are not covered under the Bill. A policy which in its application operates to the disadvantage of a particular racial group who are proportionately less able to comply with the conditions or requirements of that policy would be unlawful unless it could be justified. I ask the Minister to consider whether justification for the proposed measure outweighs its likely disproportionate impact on ethnic minorities.
I was interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Coity, talk about the prison population. I had put a Question to the Minister—to which I have received a reply only today (I hope that it will be printed in today's Hansard)—about the impact of community sentences and the breach of those sentences. I asked the Minister what is the estimated likely increase in the number of people imprisoned each year and the average daily prison population as a result not of this particular clause but of Clause 46 of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill, which concerns the breach of community orders, warnings and punishment. The Minister replied:
"We expect that the new proposals will be effective in persuading offenders to comply with their community sentences. In the short term, it is possible that there will be an increase in the numbers imprisoned. It is difficult to make firm estimates of the numbers involved, but if the new statutory warning scheme is ignored by half of those offenders who currently fail to comply without good reason on one or more occasions, some 25,000 additional offenders could be imprisoned resulting in an increase in the average daily prison population of about 1,900".
That is the impact on the prison population of breaches of community service orders, either directly or indirectly. I ask one question. What is the Labour Party's estimate of a reasonable prison population in this country? We are already at the point of competing with Turkey. How low do we have to sink?
Baroness Stern: I, too, support the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham. I do not wish to detain the Committee or the noble Baroness long. The arguments have already been put very convincingly, but I should like to add two points. I have spent many years of my life working with the people with whom this clause is concerned; that is, people in all kinds of trouble. Often their trouble with the law was the least of their worries.
All the research from the Home Office and from the Government's admirable Social Exclusion Unit bears out this experience. Many of the people we are talking about are struggling. There is one image of them as violent, offensive, thuggish and yobbish: many epithets can be found about them in the pages of any newspaper. There is another side that those who work with offenders, especially younger offenders, see often. The 19 year-old who does not look his age and who

523
comes to a project, a day centre or to see his probation officer on a Monday morning full of misery. What sort of weekend has he had? He has tried to protect his mother from being beaten by his father. He has tried to look after the three younger children and feed them. He has suffered more than usual from the headaches he gets but he does not have a GP and the doctors on the estate where he lives are not very sympathetic to people like him.
According to Home Office Research Study 167, Offenders on Probation, nearly half of the people subject to probation and community penalties said they suffered from a long-term illness compared to 13 per cent in the general population. That is the background of many of the people subject to community penalties and that case could be multiplied many thousands of times. These are the people who will be subject to this provision. They are already very poor.
It may be said that these are all excuses and that there are no excuses for crime. These are not excuses but explanations of why this measure is grossly inappropriate. It will have another effect. When dispensing justice, one has to be just.
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, said in his famous and sadly neglected 1991 report on the prison system:
"There must … be justice in our prisons. The system of justice which has put a person in prison cannot end at the prison doors. It must accompany the prisoner into the prison".
Nor must it end once the community sentence has been passed. The aim of the justice system is to get offenders to play by the rules; to respect the law; to understand justice and injustice; and to stop treating other people unjustly.
This provision is clearly unjust. If so many noble Lords think it is unjust, so will offenders subject to community orders. Those in work will continue to receive money. Those without work will be deprived of benefit before a hearing. This measure makes the task of those working to get offenders back into society very much more difficult. It is desperately hard work—painstaking work for which too little credit is given. This measure will make their work even harder and the outcome will be one that nobody wants: fewer people helped into law-abiding lives, more social exclusion and more crime.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Massey of Darwen: There was reference at Second Reading to punishment fitting the crime; to the quality of mercy; and other more classical references from the noble Earl, Lord Russell. We have heard today a great deal of eloquence about community sentencing and benefit entitlements. My noble friend Lady Kennedy of the Shaws spoke very emotively and passionately. However, she does not speak for or represent the vast majority of Labour Back-Benchers.
I want to make a few simple points underlined by the commitment in the Bill to evaluate the system of community sentences before rolling the scheme out. The points I make are about deterrents, choice, rights and responsibilities and setting examples.
524
Members of the Committee are aware that community sentences are given to and indeed chosen by offenders whose crimes are not so serious that prison is the only appropriate measure. Community service orders, probation orders and combination orders impose sanctions through some restriction of liberty for offending behaviour and making reparation for the community; for example, by performing unpaid work. In many cases, successful completion of community sentences improves the opportunities of employment for the offender. Completing a community sentence requires self-discipline in attending appointments with the Probation Service and others and turning up for work on a community service placement.
I, too, am a supporter of civil liberties of many kinds. I do not believe in punishment for punishment's sake. I believe in justice and playing by the rules. I believe that people, particularly young people referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, need to be provided with information and education to make choices in their lives. I believe that they also need frameworks and boundaries set by families, society and ultimately themselves. I believe it does no one any good, in fact it might do harm, to encourage choice, in this case choice of a community sentence, to set frameworks and then not sanction a breach of commitment. What is that saying to the offender? What is it saying to those who might offend? What is it saying to society in general?
We have now introduced citizenship education in our schools as part of the curriculum. It would be a travesty not to advocate and set examples of responsibilities as well as rights. Surely we should be saying loudly and clearly to our young people that civil liberties also carry civic duties and that offending should carry sanctions, not only for the sake of society but of the offender. There is nothing wrong with disapproval sometimes.
I understand that around 130,000 community sentences are handed down each year in England and Wales. In 30,000 cases a year, offenders have to be referred back to court because they have not complied with their sentences. This situation surely calls for action.
The Bill contains powers to withdraw selected benefits from offenders who fail to comply with community sentences. I will not go into detail; that is well known. Your Lordships are also aware that the pilot scheme will permit hardship payments, even if the jobseeker's allowance and the training allowance are withdrawn, but only the element of selected training allowances, which equates with the participant's underlying jobseeker's allowance, will be withdrawn. Any additional premium, top-up payment or payment of expenses will remain payable subject to continued participation in the scheme. The allowances selected will include those payable to participants in work-based learning for adults and the New Deal for young people. Housing benefit entitlements will not be affected.

525
This is surely about deterring people from breaching a contract they make with the state and making it clear that breach of contract will result in sanctions. Yes, it does send messages. Surely, it is fair that benefit systems should be seen to be applied to those who merit them and not to people who choose—I emphasise the word again—to fail to comply with agreed rules. There are conditions applicable to most aspects of life including good citizenship. We all have to learn the conditions and learn obligations to society. I believe that there are key principles at stake here, principles of being fair and being seen to be fair. I do not want to get into the draconian views of welfare and benefit sometimes voiced in the "vox pop" interviews. I strongly support welfare for those who deserve it and who have an entitlement to it. I also believe that people can learn and should learn to respect a system of rights and responsibilities. We must encourage them to do so. This is why I reject the amendment.
The Lord Bishop of Hereford: The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lincoln is very sorry indeed that he is not able to be here. His name is associated with these amendments. He has been called back to the diocese on urgent business. I want to express my agreement with this proposal and my support for it. I agree completely with what has been said by many Members of the Committee—the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, the noble Earl, Lord Russell and the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws. Breaching a community service order is a very serious matter. It is not something which can be overlooked and it is not something which is trivial. But what the Government are proposing is an extremely blunt and immoral instrument with which to deal with that particular alleged offence.
It is quite right that if someone is alleged to have breached a community service order, he should go back to the courts as soon as possible. It is for the courts to establish whether there is a breach. The circumstances of each case must be established. Those cases will be extremely different, from person to person. What is the proper course of action for each of the 65 per cent of those under probation supervision who are on benefits and who would be punished by this proposal?
I do not want to reiterate the arguments which have been set so eloquently before the Committee, but I want to express my support for the Motion and I apologise for the absence of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lincoln.
Lord Elton: Perhaps I may respond briefly to the intervention of the noble Baroness, Lady Massey. She has addressed the practicalities of this debate in a manner which is very attractive to a large number of people outside this Chamber and to some Members on all sides of the Committee. Therefore, in turn, it needs to be addressed.
We are debating two matters: principle and practice. The case about principle, which my noble friend Lord Windlesham and others have advanced, is
526
unanswerable in the form in which it has been put. Sometimes practicalities argue against principle. One can bend principle because practicalities make it difficult to enforce or unreliable in effect.
But I do not believe that that is so now. Many people, including the Association of Chief Officers of Probation, have adduced the way in which those provisions will work. The noble Baroness said that there must be fairness; that people expect punishment to be fair; that if you breach the order, you should be punished. My noble friend did not suggest that that should not be the case. He has merely said that it should be done by the courts; that these orders are an alternative to imprisonment; and that those who are subject to them should be exposed to the risk of imprisonment if they fail to comply.
The noble Baroness said that the appeal to the hearts of Members of the Committee because of hardship is overstated because there will be hardship payments. In the provisions, we learn that those will not be available until two weeks after the orders bite. So is it possible to survive for a fortnight on an empty stomach but not for six weeks or six months?
The noble Baroness said also that the payments for housing benefit would not be affected. But housing benefit payments are often less than rents. What happens to the unfortunate person who must meet those payments out of income? Even if he receives a hardship payment, the whole amount is not clawed back and the income element is untouched by the hardship payment.
We need to look at the practical effects of the proposed provisions. The practical effect is that many people, who are fairly incompetent at managing their lives in any event, will find it impossible to do so without resorting to crime.
Baroness Thornton: Along with my noble friend Lady Massey, it is important that I put on record that my noble friend Lady Kennedy does not speak on behalf of many of us on the Back Benches here. I say that partly because recent publicity featuring my noble friend, certainly over the past weekend, suggested that somehow my noble friend is seen as the conscience of this Labour Government. My socialist conscience is in good working order and functioning very well.
What exercises my conscience is the notion that this Government are not listening or taking seriously the terrifying nature of the lives being led by some of our citizens on the estates and in the housing schemes where violence, robbery and vandalism are a huge problem. Perhaps I may say to the noble Earl that the people on those estates are not usually property owners. Do they not also have a right to be heard in this debate? This proposal is consistent with the Government's philosophy of being tough on crime and on the causes of crime.
Earl Russell: Is the noble Baroness able to rebut the proposition that this proposal will increase crime?
Baroness Thornton: I say that the proposal is consistent with the philosophy which underpins the

527
New Deal, welfare reform and the crime and justice policy. It is a philosophy about rights and responsibilities. I shall answer the noble Earl's question when I address that point at the end of my remarks.
However. I find it puzzling that some Members of the Committee, including those on this side, speak of rights and responsibilities as a kind of pick-and-mix. It is a pick-and-mix idea of rights and responsibilities. Those people imprisoned in their houses may feel that the rights are all on one side and they may ask who is taking the responsibility.
This is not a stand-alone measure because, of course, it is part of a jigsaw of measures. It is important to support it as one small part of that.
Finally, I believe that there is an odd alliance here which includes the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and my noble friend Lady Kennedy. I know that they must be aware that when probation and community service orders are broken, the end result is that people are put in prison. I know that they cannot believe that that is a good outcome. However, I am not quite so sure about the Benches opposite, particularly after listening to the Leader of the Conservative Party, Mr Hague, on this subject during the past week. I merely say that that must give people cause for thought.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I want to ask a single question about the application of this Bill in Scotland. In view of the fact that the criminal justice system has been devolved to the Scottish Parliament, will it be intra vires for the Secretary of State to run a pilot scheme in Scotland?
Lord Christopher: I would like to indicate that from these Benches there is certainly not total unanimity about what should be done in this regard. I had better explain where I come from. For some time before 1998, I was involved with three charitable bodies concerned with penal reform and with offenders. The best part of that time was spent as chairman of NACRO, one of the organisations which was a party to the representations which have been made to many Members.
It has always seemed to me that the concept of deterrence was very confused. We live in an extremely penal-oriented society but one man's deterrent is another man's incentive. I have little doubt that the prospect of going to prison would be a 120 per cent deterrent to the Minister. Indeed, the very fact of being anywhere near the thought would be dreadful to her.
But I am puzzled by the belief that the withdrawal of this money will deter those who are under those two particular forms of sentence to whom the prospect of going to prison is not a deterrent. I find that totally unconvincing.
Perhaps I may say to my noble friend Lady Massey that most of the people that she is talking about could not spell the word "contract", let alone understand it. One problem is in being cost-effective in dealing with crime, its consequences and offenders. I assure the Committee that I should not wish to be classed as wet,
528
soft Left or pink in this concept because I was one of the major players in producing the Audit Commission's report on mis-spent youth. I commend it to a number of Members of this Chamber who have not read it. If there is a failing with the youth justice system, it certainly will not be cured by these clauses in the Bill.
I do not want to repeat what others have said before me. As I have indicated, I wish to be constructive. I have no quarrel at all with being tough on those who break that contract and in dealing with them. But the subtleties of the matter need to be understood. Only about a third of those who are taken hack to the courts are given a prison sentence. Where do the other two-thirds fall?
I believe that the real answer lies in doing something tough quickly and getting those allegedly in breach before a magistrate fast. I understand that on average it takes about six weeks. In some parts of the country I believe that it takes a good deal longer, which is utterly ridiculous. If we want people to feel that there is a deterrent and that if they are caught they will be dealt with quickly, we must deal with them quickly. Because we have dealt with them so slowly—as set out in the misspent youth report—the whole system has fallen into disrepute with such people.
There is also the belief that somehow or other the public will feel satisfied if this provision is enacted. Of course, in terms of taxation and cost, the price will be a great deal heavier. I have no doubt whatever that the consequences of this will lead to increased, often nuisance crime. I see no constructive point in that at all.
Perhaps I may conclude with an anecdote. In the 1960s I used regularly to visit two London prisons, where I spoke to prisoners who were due for release within two or three months. After a short while it was borne in upon me that, whether one liked it or not, it was desirable to try to remove any possible causes of grievance on release. Many of these men and women look for something to justify doing what they should not do. I came across several prisoners who returned to prison quickly. They had left prison, got a job, promised their wives that they would go straight and so on. Then pay day came on the Friday and they found that the inspector of taxes had taken 30 per cent of their pay so they went home with a lot less than they had thought or had promised to go home with.
That is a simple, mechanistic issue that, I hope, has been dealt with. I found the Inland Revenue extremely co-operative. At the end of the day a form was produced and given to any prisoner who wanted it so that he or she left prison with a piece of paper saying, in the majority of cases, that he or she is not liable to pay any tax. Therefore, the potential sense of grievance is removed.
This proposal invents a new potential sense of grievance. It will not be understood, except in its simplistic form. I hope that we shall not be required to vote on this matter as I hope that the Minister and the Government will think through whether there is not a better answer to dealing with this problem.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Baker of Dorking: I hope that the Minister will carefully consider the points that have been made not only from this side of the House and from the Liberal Democrat Benches, but also from the Benches behind her. The measure that she proposes is offensive on two grounds of principle.
The first principle is that the responsibility for trying to condition criminal behaviour lies with the Home Office. Those of us concerned with bringing in criminal justice Bills know only too well that this is an immensely complex measure. Whatever proposals one brings forward, one must be satisfied that one will not increase the incidence of crime, rather than reduce it. That requires a long study of criminological reports which are available only in the Home Office, in our system, or to various criminological departments in our universities. That is not the responsibility of the Department of Social Security. The Minister cannot be expected to make the case convincingly on this point because she is not responsible for such matters. Previous Labour governments and previous Conservative governments have always observed that important principle. The consequences of the Minister's suggestion is that quite lowly paid officials in the Department of Social Security will make a decision which was never intended to be part of our criminal justice system.
The second principle is that I do not believe that one should use the withdrawal of benefits and entitlements as some sort of further punishment. For many years, the noble Lord, Lord Christopher, represented the interests of the Inland Revenue and he could advise the Minister that if one of his staff had been convicted of grievous fraud, convicted and sent to prison, his or her Civil Service pension would not be removed.
When a judge was found guilty of smuggling—I believe, bootleg liquor into this country from France—there was a suggestion that his pension should be removed. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, the then Lord Chancellor, said that he would not do that, thus preventing other judges following suit.
The principle is wrong, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said. This measure cannot be used as a yo-yo penalty to withdraw entitlements. If it can be used in relation to breaches of community orders, why not use it in relation to breaches of probation orders? The Minister will say that such a person has been convicted. What about someone who breaches a probation order six times and commits six offences in between? Shall we try to condition his or her behaviour by using these sorts of penalties?
I suggest that the Minister should listen carefully to the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, who has spent most of her life and career dealing with offenders, prisons and criminals. She probably has a greater understanding of the motivation of criminals than anybody in this House. The Minister should also listen to the noble Lord, Lord Christopher.
530
This is the sort of proposal that is dreamt up on a Saturday afternoon in No. 10, when the spin doctors have come in and said, "The Sundays are going to say that we are weak on law and order; come on, Tony, come up with some really clever idea, a spiffing wheeze that will get us the headlines for a few days". They have had the headlines for a few days; they will have the headaches for years.
Lord Brookman: Perhaps I can intervene on that point which I regard as somewhat unkind and grossly unfair. In relation to the opening remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, who asked why the Department of Social Security blundered into these proposals, if he listened to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Coity, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, he would understand why the Government had to do something about the situation with which the people in this country live. It is absolute chaos out there. I do not know how many noble Lords visit the areas that have been referred to, but they are out of hand and running wild. Our people require a government who care more about the poor than did the Conservative government during their 18 or 20 years in power. We are talking about a government who genuinely care; something needs to be done.
This is not necessarily a complete solution, but it is a solution to how to deal with the problem. This is not a solution devised by judges or barristers. We have heard a lot from them this afternoon, protecting, some would say, their own interests, as ever. It is about a government who are trying to deal with the specific problem. I suggest that they be given our best wishes to proceed in the way that they intend.
Lord Windlesham: Before the noble Lord sits down, can he say how there would be greater protection in the neighbourhoods that he has described so emotively if offending is increased as a result of this measure?
Lord Brookman: I take the view that this Government are concerned with responsibilities and benefits. Why cannot these people toe the line when they know the issue with which they are faced?
Lord Goodhart: Reducing benefits as a punishment for non-compliance with a community order is profoundly objectionable. The reasons have been expressed extremely powerfully by my noble friend Lord Russell and, with the exception of four speakers from the Government Back Benches, by everybody else who has spoken. It appears, not only from the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Christopher, but also from the body language of a good many who have not spoken, that those on the Government Back Benches are at least as much in support of the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, as they are in support of the Government's position.
These points have all been made extremely well by many speakers. I want to concentrate, therefore, on a more limited question; that is, whether Clause 61 complies with the European Convention on Human Rights. I am doubtful whether, in itself, reducing

531
benefits as a form of punishment is a breach of the European convention. I am tempted to say that it amounts to inhuman treatment under Article 3, but it possibly falls a little way short of that. I see from his body language that the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, clearly takes that view.
I shall not go through the other arguments, save to say that it is well known that one of the defects of the European convention is that it does not deal in any way adequately with the problem of discrimination. While the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, pointed out effectively and unchallengeably that the provision discriminates against the poor, and my noble friend Lord Dholakia pointed out, equally effectively and unchallengeably, that it discriminates against ethnic minorities, they do not in themselves constitute breaches of the European convention as it now stands. But what is plainly in breach of the convention is the fact that the proposed punishment is to be imposed before conviction.
This is an extraordinary provision. Clause 61 may be, in form, a civil penalty. But in substance it is a criminal one because it imposes a penalty for misbehaviour. It will undoubtedly be recognised as criminal proceedings by the European Court of Human Rights when these provisions, if they become law, are challenged, as they plainly will be.
The European Convention on Human Rights provides, as does British law, a presumption of innocence. What happens to that presumption of innocence under Clause 61? What we have here is not a presumption of innocence, but a presumption of guilt because the penalty is imposed as soon as the information is laid and the Secretary of State has been notified of that fact. It is true that under Clause 61(6), if the court finds that there has been no failure to comply with the community order or there has been a reasonable excuse for non-compliance, the offender has those benefits made up. But that is not good enough. As my noble friend Lord Russell pointed out, the reduction of benefit will in itself cause severe hardship and it is not good enough, in the end, to say that the offender may receive back the money that he or she should have had in the first place. That will not compensate for the hardship caused by the unjustified withdrawal of benefits.
Why do the Government want to impose sentence before conviction? There seems to be no reason. It does not necessarily undermine the principle of Clause 61, even if one sticks to that.
Lord Davies of Coity: Perhaps the noble Lord will give way. I am intrigued by the question of penalty before conviction. How would the noble Lord answer if the legislation were framed in such a way that the person going before the courts was given a community service order on the understanding that, if they broke it, they would lose benefit?
Lord Goodhart: It would still have to be proved that they had broken the order. Surely, it would be better
532
to wait a few weeks and make sure that a harsh penalty is not being imposed on an innocent person; a person who is innocent of the breach of the order.
The specific element of imposing penalty before conviction is almost certainly contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights and is perhaps the most objectionable of all the objectionable features of this clause.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I say nothing of the merits of his argument. But if he is predicting the way in which an application to the Court of Human Rights might emerge, does he remember the case of Duhs v. Sweden, where an ex post facto remedy by a court was regarded as justifying what was done?
Lord Goodhart: The facts of that case are a long 'way from the facts of this case. I do not believe that, in a case of this kind, the court would find any justification for imposing a penalty before the conviction.
I conclude by saying that I feel that this is perhaps the most objectionable provision of what is, in itself, an entirely objectionable clause. I hope that in due course the whole of Clause 61 will be withdrawn by the Government.
Lord Goldsmith: The question of the legality of this provision was rightly raised by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. There was a risk that that question might go by default; that it might be assumed by Members of the Committee, in the light of comments that were made, that this provision would be unlawful. I want to spend a few moments on that issue. I do not want to say anything about the question of underlying policy, on which so much has been said so powerfully on both sides of the argument.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, that the question of legality depends upon Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. I agree with him, and that is why I was noticeably shaking my head, that this cannot be a question of inhuman treatment, nor does he suggest that it would be. Nor can it be given the state of the law on discrimination; in my view, a question of unlawful discrimination. My noble friend Lady Kennedy of The Shaws referred to Article 7—no punishment without law—but should this Bill be passed by this Parliament, that could not be an issue.
Reference was also made by several Members of the Committee to the principle of no double punishment. In so far as that is to be found in the European Convention on Human Rights, it is to he found in a protocol which, so far, this Government have not ratified. In any event, the idea that more than one detriment may follow from a single act is well known, well understood and happens quite frequently.
The real question, therefore, relates to Article 6. What is the substance of the requirement of that: article? First, that those who have their civil or criminal rights to be determined, should have them

533
determined by a court, independent, impartial, in public and in a reasonable time. But—and this is the substance and the purport of the intervention of my noble and learned friend Lord Archer—the European Court of Human Rights, in its jurisprudence, recognised that that does not require that in every case the penalty be imposed only at the time of determination by a court. There are a number of cases—my noble and learned friend referred to one—the case of Ozturk; the case of Malige is another, and in its judgment the court said that,
"where a penalty is criminal in nature there must be the possibility of review by a court which satisfies the requirements of Article 6 § 1, even though it is not inconsistent with the Convention for the prosecution and punishment of minor offences to be primarily a matter for the administrative authorities".
That refers back to earlier jurisdiction of the court and is a commonplace in certain countries that, for certain minor offences, administrative authorities impose sanctions which have to be paid at that stage. There is the right to determination by the court and, on determination, that penalty is returned, so long as that court is, as magistrates' courts undoubtedly are, public, impartial and hear the offences within a reasonable time. Those conditions are required.
I recognise that there is scope for argument, as there always is under the European Convention on Human Rights, as to which side of a line something would fall. There are certain features about this regime, however, which justify the view which my noble friend the Minister has expressed on the face of the Bill, pursuant to legal advice which the department has received, and she has told your Lordships that this will comply with the ECHR.
Those conditions seem to me to be these. First, the very important fact that, under the proposed legislation, the question of whether or not ultimately the benefit is to be lost is for the magistrates' court. That is plainly a critical consideration. Secondly, the degree of punishment involved—and I am prepared for these purposes to treat it as such.
My understanding is that under the proposed regulations this will be limited to a four-week deprivation; secondly, that it will not be a complete deprivation of benefit, depending upon the circumstances of the individual. Reference has been made to a hardship allowance remaining available and to income support not being completely removed. Finally, the approach corresponds to the general approach taken under the legislation, where the conditions for benefit are determined by administrative act in the first instance.
Those considerations lead me to the view therefore that on the question of legality this is not, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, certain or almost certain to breach the ECHR. I take the opposite view. I recognise that there is a grey area but, having regard to the jurisprudence of the court which exists, I take the view that the Government are justified in putting this forward on the basis that it will not do so. As the Minister has said in this House, should it turn out that the court takes a different view, effect will have to be
534
given to that. As it stands, however, I suggest that your Lordships should not consider this matter on the basis that it will be illegal. On the basis of the merits of the argument, I say nothing.
Lord Ackner: Before the noble Lords sits down, can he help me in this matter? He says that the real question is whether there has been a breach of Article 6. Is not the real question whether punishment before conviction is an insult to one's elementary sense of fairness?
The niceties of the European law, deeply stimulating to the lawyer, have absolutely no relevance to the question here of fairness. How does he deal with that?
Lord Goldsmith: It is very refreshing to hear the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, dismiss law in that way. As the noble and learned Lord will have heard, my observations to your Lordships were addressed to one argument which has been advanced in support of the proposition that these clauses should not stand part of the Bill, namely that these provisions will be unlawful.
I made it very plain that it was no part of what I was dealing with to say anything about the policy of the matter. That is for your Lordships to determine and others on both sides of the House have spoken eloquently about it.
So far as the law is concerned I believe, particularly in the light of the observations of the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and of others, that it is important to address the question of legality. That is what I have sought to do and I hope that it will be of some assistance to your Lordships.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: The noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, spoke of other jurisdictions and used the words "minor administrative penalties". Is it the noble Lord's thinking that withdrawal of benefits could conceivably be viewed as minor in the circumstances with which we are dealing here?
Lord Goldsmith: Yes. I emphasise the limit in terms of time and in terms of amount. I do not doubt for a moment that, for the individual involved, the effect is significant; but when one looks at this in the overall context of the criminal law, punishments, procedures, and puts it in the scale, the European Court of Human Rights has recognised that, so long as there is a right of review by a court which offers these guarantees—which the magistrates' court does and which is required under this Act—then it does not breach the European Convention on Human Rights. As the noble Lord puts it, the punishment is placed first or, as I believe the Minister will explain it, the condition for the benefit is triggered at an earlier stage. I was prepared to approach it on the basis of punishment, in order to deal with the argument.
Lord Warner: I apologise for missing the beginning of this debate, but I have an excuse. Perhaps I may offer the excuse to your Lordships and make a few

535
comments on this issue from my perspective as chairman of the Youth Justice Board. I have been out of London, launching a youth offending team, following the excellent report from the Audit Commission on misspent youth. I am pleased to be able t o say that these changes are going extremely well.
Perhaps I may be allowed to offer a few points on the policy underlying this. If it is your Lordships' wish that I should not then I will, of course, sit down.
I will take that silence as consent to go ahead! First, there is the issue of conditionality. There is in this provision the notion of conditionality of benefit. This is not a new principle. Conditionality for paying benefit is a long-established principle, as I know from my own experience of working in social security.
What may be deemed a little novel is the idea that conditionality should be linked to breaches of criminal justice orders. The conditionality of social security benefit payments, however, is part and parcel of the individual's contract with the state. The state agrees to pay benefits on certain conditions if certain contingencies arise. We are doing no more in this provision, I suggest, than extending that to another part of the individual's contract with the state. In this circumstance the contract is one in which the individual has undertaken to abide by the terms of a particular court order. The terms of the court order and the arrangements for its enforcement have been made clear to that individual. This provision does no more than produce a lower alternative penalty than the existing arrangements for breaches of that court order, which is imprisonment.
The noble Baroness has made it clear that the terms of this punishment will be no more than a four-week deprivation of the benefit and there will be hardship provisions. That does not seem to me to be a very onerous set of circumstances if you consider the alternative, which might be imprisonment for the breaches of the court order.
The noble Lord, Lord Baker, implied that all wisdom in these matters should reside in the Home Office. A lot of wisdom does reside in the Home Office. I suggest to the noble Lord, however, that it is also apparent that not all of the changes which the previous government introduced to the criminal justice system were the result of carefully researched and weighed proposals, supported by a basis of academic research. Sometimes, I suggest, people make judgments about sensible ways forward in the light of circumstances which people face.
On the issue of whether or not people understand, it seems to me that the suggestion that people do not understand the consequences of a community order is rather patronising. They have been through this process. The circumstances have been explained to them. They have knowingly breached the contract that they have undertaken to carry out. The response proposed in this clause, it seems to me, is proportionate to the offence that they have committed.
7 p.m.
Lord Ackner: Before the noble Lord sits down, I have a question for him. I understand his application, generally, of the principle of "conditionality", but I should like some assistance on the following: who is to establish whether the condition has been broken?
Lord Warner: The decision maker responsible for the enforcement of the community order in the first place would draw the attention of the justice to the fact that there has been a breach of the condition.
Lord Ackner: To say that someone would draw the attention of the justice to the fact that there has been a breach seems to concede that the court is the organ which makes the decision.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Perhaps I may assist the noble and learned Lord. The procedure is virtually identical to one where an employer, for example, reports to the DSS that someone has voluntarily left work or, indeed, where a doctor dealing with an incapacity benefit or DLA form has stated that the person is better and no longer entitled to claim. Such information would be re-laid to the decision maker within the DSS who makes the decision. The same procedure would be followed here.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: Members of the Committee are grappling with what is ultimately a practical issue, not a theoretical one; namely, whether this clause will or will not assist the aims that we all share to reduce criminality and aid the rehabilitation of offenders. The noble Lord, Lord Warner, has a great deal of experience in these matters, so I put this question to him. Can he say why the National Association of Probation Officers, whose members will have more to do with this than any other group of people, is so fiercely opposed to this clause?
Lord Warner: I do not wish to trade views on the National Association of Probation Officers with the noble Lord. However, the association has not always supported well-intentioned and well-thought-out reforms for some parts of the criminal justice system. On this occasion, it is possible that, like all human beings, it may be in error as to the possible consequences.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I have been sitting here throughout the debate. Therefore, I intend to say a few words on the subject. I thought that we believed in equality before the law in this country. However, it seems to me that there is no equality before the law in this case because some people can be punished in advance of being convicted. So there is no equality before the law. That is a tenet that we ought always to keep in mind.
My noble friend Lord Brookman said that something must be done, which is something that we are always hearing. Of course, something must be done; but what must be done must be right. I do not believe that what we are proposing to do here today

537
under this clause is the right way to proceed. Indeed, if such a provision had been proposed by a Tory government and put forward by, for example, Mr Redwood, there would have been a public outcry. I also have a feeling that that public outcry would have been very ably and brilliantly articulated by my noble friend the Minister—and quite rightly so. I am sorry that she is not doing that today.
My noble friend Lady Kennedy of The Shaws is not without friends on these Benches. I am glad that she is not without friends because if the Labour Party is about anything, it is about justice. It is certainly about justice for the poorest people in our community. That is another reason why I believe that this clause is wrong. It does not do the right thing for our people—I repeat, "for our people".
I should also like to add that our justice system does not usually embark upon administrative punishments. People in this country have believed over many hundreds of years that justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done. Administrative justice taken in an office in Whitehall, or elsewhere in a regional office out in the country, cannot be seen to be done; indeed, justice cannot be seen to be done. On every count, there is no way in a democratic country that such a provision should be written into our law. Like my noble friend Lord Christopher, I hope that my noble friend the Minister will give us the assurance tonight that she will take this provision away and reflect further upon it. If she does not and the matter goes to a vote, I shall feel tempted—perhaps obliged—to vote with those who oppose the Question that Clause 61 stand part of the Bill.
Lord Higgins: Anyone intervening in the debate at this stage can do so only with an immense feeling of diffidence and inadequacy. The arguments advanced by many noble Lords have, in many cases, been the result of many years of experience in the very areas now under discussion, whether social security policy issues or, indeed, the law. In his opening remarks, my noble friend Lord Windlesham reflected on years of experience at the forefront of such issues; and, indeed, was backed up by no fewer than two former Home Secretaries.
Clearly this is a matter that goes straight across party lines. All the signatories opposing the Question that Clause 61 stand part of the Bill come from different parts of the Chamber—for example, from my own side, from the Liberal Democrat Benches, from the Labour Benches and, indeed, from the Bishops' Benches. This is a matter of very great importance. Many quotes have been given from outside organisations that are concerned with the issue. I should add that I do not believe that I have received a single representation from an outside body which is actually in favour of what the Government propose. As many quotations have been given, I shall refer to just one or two.
538
I am quite considerably influenced by the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, which is certainly very much in the frontline as regards these issues. It says that,
"the proposal to link compliance of community orders with payment of social security, could put many of our clients in a vulnerable position. These measures are part of the Government's crime reduction strategy, but we fear that far from reducing crime, the proposals, if introduced, could have the opposite effect. Those already struggling on benefits could well be tempted to commit crime if benefits are reduced, or even worse, withdrawn".
In partial reply to the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, I do not believe that one should underestimate in any way the severity of the penalties on those who are already extremely poor.
One noble Lord on the Back Benches opposite said that the Labour Party is in favour of protecting the poor. But these measures will undoubtedly have a serious effect on many very poor members of our society. I understand that the Penal Affairs Consortium, which has already been mentioned, considers that this measure is objectionable in principle and that it will prove counter-productive in practice. It says that pushing poor people into even greater poverty must increase the temptation to steal, burgle, rob, shoplift, solicit or sell drugs.
Finally, I quote from the National Association of Probation Officers:
"The effect of reducing benefit by administrative means is a non-judicial form of punishment. The measures will remove from the courts their power to deal with breaches of their own orders".
All these matters give grave cause for concern. The basic thread of the argument is the following. While we on this side of the Committee of course strongly support measures to improve law and order, if the measure itself will be counter-productive—as so many organisations outside the Chamber which are concerned with this matter believe to be the case—clearly there is no point in introducing it. We need to consider that matter from a practical point of view.
I was rather surprised to note that there was no reference to the European Convention on Human Rights until late in the debate. These matters were not raised until the intervention, first, of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and then of the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith. I am not a lawyer and I have not taken legal advice on these matters. However, the implementation of the European Convention on Human Rights with regard to British law is very much in its infancy. The Minister has stated clearly on the face of the Bill:
"In my view the provisions of the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill are compatible with the Convention rights".
I believe that that matter may give rise to problems because we do not know on what advice the Minister has made that statement. To say the least, the exchange between the noble Lords, Lord Goodhart and Lord Goldsmith, suggested that there is some doubt on this matter. It would be helpful to know whether the statement is based on the advice of lawyers in the Department of Social Security or on that of lawyers in the Foreign Office. Where does the legal advice originate? While it is a well-established

539
convention, which I support, that the source of advice to Ministers should not normally be revealed, none the less I believe that we should be given some idea of the authority on whose advice the statement was made.
In another place my honourable friend Mr David Willetts strongly expressed his grave doubts about whether the measure conformed with the convention. He asked on what basis the statement made in another place that the Bill was compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights was justified. Ms Eagle replied in considerable detail on 18th January. Some of the points that she made are technical and legal. As a non-lawyer I find that to some extent they rather fly in the face of common sense. Ms Eagle stated:
"The obligations under Article 6 of the Convention (the right to a fair trial) are complied with as those affected by this measure will have a right of appeal to an independent tribunal in respect of the decision to withdraw or reduce benefits and the magistrates or Crown Court".
will assess the matter. There may be a right of appeal, but that is a right of appeal against a conviction which has not yet been incurred. We are talking about purely an administrative act. Therefore, to talk in terms of a right of appeal seems to me a rather strange way of looking at the matter.
There is an even more technical reply with regard to Article 7 (no punishment without law). A similar point is made to that made by the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, this evening; namely, that, Article 7,
"does not arise as the measure (even if it was regarded as criminal in nature) will only apply to those given community sentences after this Bill has become law and been commenced. There will be no retrospection".—[Official Report, Commons, 18/1/00; WA430.]
I do not think that anyone suggested that there would be retrospection. But, be that as it may, it would appear that there is no question of there being no punishment without law; that is to say, without a statute having been passed, but, rather, of whether there should be any punishment without a trial. I give way.
Lord Goldsmith: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Although Article 7 is said to concern the matter of no punishment without law, it concerns retrospection. That is all it is about. It is about not holding people guilty of criminal offences which were not criminal at the time that they were committed.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Higgins: I entirely defer to the noble Lord's vastly greater knowledge as I have none on this subject. However, I am trying to draw attention to a number of serious problems which we believe need to be addressed.
As regards discrimination, we seem suddenly to have got into the philosophical mode of saying that there is a contract between the community and the state, but that it applies only to people who are on benefit. The people who are on benefit will be penalised by the measure we are discussing. An extra penalty may be imposed on people on benefit. The extra penalty will not be imposed on people who are
540
not on benefit. I should have thought that by any standards that must be discriminatory. Therefore, as I say, I believe that serious problems arise with regard to these matters and their compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights.
Earlier this afternoon we defended the position of the Minister who replies on behalf of the Government. We understand that that is her duty this evening. However, I wonder whether the practice which was available—indeed, I believe that it is still available in the House of Commons—of asking the opinion of the Law Officers on a particular Bill might be adopted in this instance. Up to now that has not been possible as the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General have both been in the other place. However, that is no longer the case. Perhaps by the time we reach Report stage the Attorney-General may care to give us a more definitive view on the matter, given the clear division of opinion between the noble Lords, Lord Goodhart and Lord Goldsmith. I leave these legal matters on one side, but I believe that some serious issues have arisen which ought to be considered between now and Report stage.
The noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, appeared to argue that the penalties we are discussing are not severe. Others have referred to the hardship fund. Many of the people we are discussing claim income support. Another discriminatory aspect arises in that connection in that the penalty that is imposed will depend on which benefit the person involved is claiming. There is a huge difference between the levels of different benefits. I forget the exact figures but perhaps the noble Baroness can remind us of the sums that might be lost in terms of income per week. As I say, a discriminatory aspect arises with regard to the different benefits that are awarded.
The hardship fund is discretionary. I understand from what organisations outside have told me that under the circumstances we are discussing a pregnant woman could find her benefit reduced to 80 per cent of its normal level. A mother with dependent children could find that her benefit is reduced to 60 per cent of its normal level. The benefit may be cut only for a short period of time. On the other hand, it may be cut for a considerable length of time. One cannot say that these are not important penalties. The allegations that are made against people should be examined before a decision is taken.
Lord Goldsmith: Again I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I never said that these measures were not important. I recall that I said, in answer to the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, that to the individuals concerned they would be important. I said that in the range of criminal penalties and criminal sanctions (assuming these to be such for these purposes), from the most serious to the least serious—the European Court of Human Rights having said that at the lower end it is not necessary that there should be a finding by a court before an administrative sanction is imposed—in my view, having regard to the features I have identified, these objectively would fall into that lower category. I never

541
suggested that it would not be important to the individuals concerned. Indeed, I believe I said that it would be.
Lord Higgins: I fully accept what the noble Lord said on both points. It is common ground between us that these penalties are severe—that may not be exactly what the noble Lord said—for the people at the front end. I fear this may cause them serious problems. I notice that I have the assent of the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, in this regard. They are penalties which will seriously affect individuals, and they will be imposed simply as a result of allegations being made against them.
None the less, we have had a fine debate on this subject. Many important issues have been raised. I am inclined to the take view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Christopher—again speaking with considerable experience—and I hope that the Government will take the clause away, think very carefully about it, and realise that there are very serious problems here that the Committee may well not accept.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: As the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, said, we have had a careful, thoughtful and fascinating debate. I do not know about being fascinating, but I shall try to be at least careful and thoughtful in my response.
The proposal that these clauses should not stand part would remove from the Bill our proposals to link entitlement to benefit to compliance with community sentences. The Committee will know that we are reforming the welfare state. We believe that this issue is about contract. In a foreword to the Green Paper A New Contract fir Welfare, the Prime Minister stated:
"on the basis of a new contract between citizen and state, where we keep a welfare state from which we all benefit but on terms which are fair and clear … It is a contract between us as citizens. It needs to be a fair deal … one which is fair within and between generations".
This measure is about rights and responsibilities in relation to benefits—that is why it is a DSS matter; it is not primarily a criminal justice matter. The Government believe that rights to benefits and the fulfilment of responsibilities to society must be clearly linked. Our general approach is that it is right for people of working age who are able to work to do what they can to help themselves back into work and into society. If they do not meet this basic condition, then benefit should not be made available on the same basis as for those who do.
In the case of the community sentence sanction, we do not believe that it is fair, as my noble friends Lord Brookman and Lord Davies of Coity said—nor would it be regarded as such by those who do meet their obligations to society by paying taxes to support those on benefit, by avoiding crime or by assiduously serving the sentences that they are given—that community sentence offenders who do not keep their part of the bargain with society should expect to be supported on the same terms as everyone else. Those who are able to
542
turn up and sign for their benefits but not able to turn up to meet their probation officer, should not expect the same terms.
I acknowledge the point, made particularly by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that this is an extension of the principle of conditionality that has been within our benefit system for some time. Our benefits system is not, and never has been, a birthright. As my noble friend Lady Kennedy of The Shaws said, it is not simply about needs and entitlement. It is more complicated than that. We impose, as did the previous Government, as a society conditions for the receipt of benefit and, with the reform of the benefit system, we are indeed imposing some new conditions. They are conditions associated with good citizenship, not simply with needs and entitlement.
Underpinning that concept of good citizenship, obviously, is work. The conditionality already in the social security system associated with work and training for work is reflected in measures developed for the New Deal for unemployed people, in the work-focused interviews in the ONE service, and in the longstanding conditions for entitlement to jobseeker's allowance. Those, of course, attract sanctions of up to 26 weeks' loss of benefit.
Earl Russell: Does the Minister understand that when she takes the principle of linking rights and responsibilities as a rule for the imposition of legislation, she is taking a sound principle of private morality and, by importing it into the public sphere, she is turning it into an authoritarian imposition of government judgment? It does not belong here.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I do not accept that for one moment. One of the deep divisions between myself and the noble Earl, Lord Russell—I hope I am not doing his position an injustice—is that he believes that someone has a birthright to benefit; an entitlement to benefit that no one has a right to sanction. We do not believe that. Benefit is the result of a decision by taxpayers—all of us—to support people who cannot for good reason support themselves. Where people can support themselves, they should; and where those people fail to abide by other conditions of their benefit entitlement—for example, by turning up for interviews on time and so on—that, too, should attract sanctions.
I do not always agree with the Conservative Benches, obviously, but here there is a profound difference between myself as a representative of the Government and the noble Lord. We believe that if society offers people benefits because they are not in a position to support themselves, society has a right to expect appropriate behaviour from them. I agree with the noble Lord that there can be arguments about what is "appropriate"—I accept that—but that we have the right to impose such conditions and exact sanctions if those conditions are broken seems to be not in dispute. I should be surprised if the Committee felt that benefit was an entitlement come what may in our society.
There is a different kind of conditionality associated with a different kind of good citizenship—the noble Earl, Lord Russell, has pressed us today and on

543
Second Reading about departing outside the realm of benefit—which concerns the preparation for parenting, the Sure Start maternity grant. Payments are to he made on the birth of a child to those in receipt of means-tested benefits and tax credits in exchange for confirmation that they have received appropriate advice from health professionals on maternal health and the health and welfare of the new-born. Previously, all new mothers had to do was to provide evidence of pregnancy; now, if they do not seek and receive that advice, no payment is made. The benefit payment of the Sure Start maternity grant is made conditional on mothers seeking appropriate healthcare, something outside the benefit field.
The completion of community sentences is manifestly a question of good citizenship and, like work and preparation for parenthood, it is beneficial to the individuals themselves. These are criminal sentences and, as noble Lords have described, by virtue of that fact they contain an element of punishment and of reparation. We want compliance so that offenders' debts to society are repaid. But we also want compliance, as my noble friend Lady Massey said, because there is a rehabilitative aspect to community sentences. Completion is, or should be, beneficial to the offender. There may be no obvious direct link between the breach of a community sentence and the need for benefit, as there is between the requirement to seek work and benefit receipt, but those links are partly in the eyes of those speaking today.
We regard looking for work and complying with community sentences as important obligations to society which involve people doing their part to help themselves. As my noble friend Lady Massey said, that may be in terms of work skills, of basic literacy, of the discipline of coming in on time and behaving appropriately. All those matters may be part of a community sentence. It is appropriate behaviour which we hope will result in offenders not continuing to offend. Compliance with community sentences is closely linked to playing a full part in society through work. We do not believe that these issues are unrelated.
This measure is limited in its extent. In no way does it confer powers to extend conditionality beyond breaches of community sentences. Again, I was pressed on this by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. I would not on principle rule out further extensions, but it would be for Parliament to debate whether particular behaviour is sufficiently undesirable and to be so strongly discouraged that it merits the withdrawal of state support via the benefit system.
This measure sits squarely with the direction for the reform of welfare that we should be pursuing. We do not want to continue sending mixed messages about what is and what is not acceptable behaviour by paying money from the public purse to those who have, despite repeated chances, shown themselves not willing to abide by the rules that society has set down. Those originally sentenced to a community sentence rather than a prison sentence who then go on to break it can—I speak now wearing my hat as someone who
544
has served on a city council and represented a rather poor ward for 25 years—make life on our poorer estates an absolute misery for residents. When I have been canvassing over the years those residents have put to me that they are utterly baffled why they as taxpayers are expected to support them with benefit while in the meantime they continue to engage in bullying behaviour, hooligan behaviour and vandalising behaviour. They do not understand why they, as law-abiding residents, should continue not only to accept that behaviour but financially support it by paying benefit while the offenders themselves fail to observe their community sentence.
The Earl of Onslow: I have listened to practically all of this debate. What has come out is that if we take away that benefit, crime will go up. The noble Baroness has not addressed that problem. She has rightly brought up the problem of the poorer estates that are vandalised. But will the taking away of benefit prevent one incidence of aerosol spraying, one television being nicked or one drug being pushed? Until she answers that question, I suggest that we should listen very carefully to what the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, said.
7.30 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The noble Earl is absolutely right to say that I have not answered that question. I have not come to it yet. I shall now do so, because that is the whole point of having pilots.
I do not accept the validity of criticisms which focus on this matter as if it were simply a criminal justice measure and see it only as a punishment measure designed to deter breaches, though we believe that also. We hope and expect that it will deter breaches because the completion of their community sentence is in the best interests of offenders. That is why the court in its wisdom made that judgment in the first place. It is not the DSS but the courts which decide that community sentences are the best way of providing punishment, reparation and rehabilitation. I should have thought that your Lordships would want to see anything that strengthens the capacity of the criminal justice system to deliver compliance with community sentences.
I acknowledge that there will be some who interpret the withdrawal of benefit as the punishment for something they have done or failed to do. At this stage, that is not our primary intent. What we are doing is attaching an extra condition to benefit. If you seek benefit, one of the conditions for retaining it is that you comply with a community sentence.
A few noble Lords—primarily those who have considerable expertise in this field—have raised ECHR issues. I refer in particular to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and, to a lesser extent perhaps, the noble Lord, Lord Higgins. Those points were answered fully and elegantly by my noble friend Lord Goldsmith and so I shall not seek to answer the ECHR points in great detail. I shall defer to my noble friend Lord Goldsmith on those points. But I want to say that the statement I have signed on the face of the

545
Bill—under Section 19 of the Human Rights Act 1998—I did not sign lightly; nor is it included in the Bill lightly. I took thorough advice and I sought repeated advice. After that I have had full legal advice. I believe that the case I have outlined, that this measure is part of the redefinition of the principles according to which benefit payments are made, is a strong one and an important element in the defence of any challenges to those measures in the courts. As my noble friend Lord Goldsmith said, we believe that these measures are proportionate to our objective aims and can and will withstand legal challenge.
Lord Goodhart: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Can she explain why the Government thought it necessary to impose this penalty immediately rather than wait until the court had in fact confirmed that there had been a breach of the order?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am not going to duck this issue. I shall come on to precisely that point. But the noble Lord, with his experience, and his noble friend Lord Russell will know that in all DSS matters the decision to revoke a benefit on the grounds that there has been an infringement of the conditions of that benefit, whether a failure to turn up for an interview or a failure to hold down a job, is determined by the decision-maker in the DSS. It is no different here. It is determined by the decision-maker in the DSS on the evidence submitted by the probation officer.
Lord Goodhart: With great respect, who is a decision-maker here? It seems to me that under Clause 61 the consequences follow automatically. As soon as the information is laid, the consequences follow. No one takes a decision on that until the court does.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: They no more or no less make a decision than they do on, for example, sanctioning JSA for failure to observe work-related conditions or, for example, the removal of some of the incapacity benefits—DLA and so on—on the grounds of medical evidence. In one case we get information from the employer and the decision-maker makes that decision; in another case the information on medical benefits will come from the doctor and the decision-maker—the DSS—will take that decision. In this case the information will come from the probation officer and the DSS decision-maker will make that decision. The analogy is complete. That is how the DSS works.
Decisions about the infringement of conditions of benefit in all of these areas have, ever since the DSS was established, been made by the DSS. That is why it is so important for me to try to seek to explain to the Committee that what we are concerned about here is the condition of benefit, as opposed to questions of second punishments and so on, on which, as a result, the decision-maker in the DSS will say that the benefit conditions have been infringed in exactly the same way as the doctor may say it or the employer may say it. On the basis of that information from the probation officer, the decision-maker will make a judgment.
546
The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, raised a point. However, as the noble Lord is not in his place, I shall write to him. The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, made a similar point. She suggested that these measures would be particularly harsh in their effect on women either because—I do not wish to misquote her—more women may be receiving community sentences or, alternatively, and possibly as well, because they have additional responsibilities that might make it more difficult for them to comply with community sentences. It is true that women have additional responsibilities. That is perhaps one reason why very few of them are given community sentences. Only 14 per cent of the 27,000 sentences given in 1998 were to women. But in laying down the conditions for those sentences, the courts and the Probation Service already take care to set conditions which take into account their other responsibilities. I would be amazed if in the case mentioned by my noble friend—the person whose child was seriously ill during the night—the probation officer did not think that that was a reasonable ground for not turning up for an interview the next day.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: Perhaps I may deal with that point because it concerns the position of the probation officer being equivalent to, for example, a doctor saying that someone is no longer disabled. It really is not equivalent because what probation officers will say is that the duty rests with them. If someone is 20 minutes late, it is taken as a nonattendance. Whatever their excuse for being late, a non-attendance is marked as a failure. That is one failure. You need only one other failure. I mentioned a child keeping his mother awake at night, perhaps because of nightmares or earache. That is not enough to call out a doctor in the middle of the night; and what the Probation Service is not allowed to accept, and does not get from doctors, is retrospective medical notes. Doctors are not prepared to give families retrospective medical notes. The probation officer is therefore faced with two instances of failure to comply and an automatic obligation to inform the court and, in turn now, the benefit office. That is where the Probation Service feels most in despair about this requirement from government.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I should like to make two points in response. First, as my noble friend will know, women, including those with families and additional responsibilities, comply far better with community sentences than do men. If my noble friend's point was right, they would be less likely to comply.
Secondly, if my noble friend was right to say that their reasons were not acceptable, surely that would be taken into account by the courts. Perhaps I may proceed with this point before noble Lords intervene. We know that, of the 130,000 community orders issued each year, a little under 30,000 are breached. Less than one-half of 1 per cent of those, when they are reported to the courts, are not upheld by the courts. That

547
amounts to around 400 cases out of a total of 30,000. Furthermore, 200 or so of those 400 cases are withdrawn.
In terms of the acceptability of the behaviour of probation officers in the judgment of the courts in upholding that behaviour, there is a far more professional standard of evidence and an infinitely higher standard of acceptance of that evidence. By contrast, in the case of doctors' submissions on DLA cases, around 40 per cent of decisions are overturned on appeal. Similarly, a high percentage of JSA cases are overturned on employers' evidence at tribunal. In that sense, the standard of evidence submitted by probation officers to the DSS that a benefit has been infringed is not only higher, but also is almost universally upheld by the courts.
Other noble Lords have raised questions as regards the timing of the sanction. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Baker, referred to this. It is imposed at the point when the offender is referred back to the court for an "alleged breach" rather than after the court has found the breach proven. I hope that I am not putting an argument into the noble Lord's mouth, but several noble Lords have made that point. Our procedures follow those already in place as regards social security matters.
Lord Baker of Dorking: I did not raise the matter at all.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am grateful to the noble Lord for confirming that he agrees with the point I am making here.
I repeat: our procedures here are entirely in line with the way that social security matters have worked for 50 years. As in all benefit sanctions, the decision maker in the Benefits Agency will review evidence. That happens now with evidence from a doctor or employer. For example, an employer might state that someone should not be eligible for benefit because they left their employment voluntarily, but the claimant may argue that it was in fact a case of constructive dismissal. A case such as that poses a much more grey and difficult problem for the decision maker than do the circumstances we are considering here. The decision maker will come to a conclusion based on information purveyed by the probation officer; information which, as I have already said, is almost universally upheld by the courts.
The decision maker will reduce benefit as provided for in the Bill on the basis of a certificate from the Probation Service that an offender has failed to observe his community sentence and has therefore been referred back to court for a breach. The offender then has a right of appeal against the benefit decision as he would have in the case of other benefit sanctions or decisions by the appeals service. In addition, the criminal court will hear and consider all the evidence relating to the breach to determine whether the breach is proven. That remains entirely a matter for the criminal courts.
548
A number of questions about Scotland were put by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, supported by the noble Earl. Obviously DSS matters are not devolved. I was asked specifically, as this matter is devolved to Scotland, whether it would be infra vires to run a pilot in Scotland. As I say, that: is a reserved matter and it would therefore be infra vires to run such a pilot in Scotland.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Will the Government now capitulate and not hold a pilot or will they ask the Scottish Parliament to do so?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: In Scotland at present, loss of benefit can occur when information is presented to a justice of the peace rather than a sheriff. The decision to withdraw benefit rests with an impartial decision maker at the Benefits Agency in Scotland in the same way as in England and Wales. This follows when proceedings are commenced by the issue of a warrant.
If I have not fully answered the noble Baroness's question, perhaps I may do so in writing. I do not for a moment profess to be very familiar with Scottish law.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I wish to press the noble Baroness only on the pilot schemes. If Scotland is not to run pilot schemes on its own system because it is a devolved matter, that is very serious indeed. Surely the Government need to reconcile this with the Scots Parliament and have pilot schemes there, organised by them.
7.45 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I take the point made by the noble Baroness and I shall seek further advice on it. As I said in my reply to the noble Earl, my understanding is that although DSS matters are not devolved, the process of jurisdiction is devolved. That is the reason for the element of complexity here and that is why, at this stage, we do not propose to extend the pilot schemes to Scotland.
We believe that the benefits sanction needs to be implemented quickly and with certainty if it is to get across the message that community sentences are to be respected and that observance of a community sentence forms an appropriate part of entitlement to benefit. That is what we are seeking to achieve here. Having an automatic sanction which commences at the point when the probation officer notifies the department that someone is not observing their community sentence and is therefore having their case referred to court is a simple and effective deterrent to offenders who might otherwise be tempted to breach their sentence.
I mentioned earlier that we all know that the Probation Service does not lightly refer people back to the courts. We know also that court decisions made following those referrals are almost invariably upheld.
The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, the noble Lord. Lord Windlesham, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford and my noble friend Lord Christopher all

549
pressed me on the point that this measure would be counter-productive in that it will encourage more crime. They have argued that once benefit is removed, people become poorer and thus they will be incited to commit more crimes. However, when we examine community sentences, I wonder whether that is true. I take the point that that might happen in the case of drug offences, which were mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham. But community sentences are also imposed for violent assault. Assault is not a crime connected to poverty; it is connected to unacceptable behaviour. Other sentences are imposed for burglary, theft and motoring offences. Again, those offences have little to do with poverty but a great deal to do with law-breaking and lawlessness. If someone tears around an estate in a car he has stolen and does not have a licence to drive, that has little to do with poverty. I do not see why someone's propensity to commit crime will be increased—
Earl Russell: I think that the Minister has missed the point here. We are not here discussing the nature of the previous offence. We are concerned with whether the absence of benefit creates an extra incentive to crime.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: That, of course, is precisely the kind of matter that will be reviewed in the pilot studies. We are not aiming for immediate implementation across the entire country should Parliament so agree. We shall run pilot schemes to see whether some of the concerns raised by noble Lords tonight are validated by the evidence. We shall examine whether a certain type of behaviour should be met by a sanction on benefit and whether that sanction leads to greater compliance with community sentences. That, I am sure, all noble Lords would wish to see.
We hope that the existence of a sanction will mean that it will not have to be implemented very often. A clear message is to be given that benefit will be put at risk if the sentence is breached. It will be given by the court on sentencing and by the Probation Service both on first contact with the offender and after the first unacceptable failure to comply with the sentence. The sanction will not be invoked until the second offence. In my view, that will give offenders a strong incentive to comply with their sentences. It will focus their minds on the need to keep in touch with their probation officers, turn up for work and turn up to meetings in exactly the same way as they manage to turn up to sign on and collect their benefit. If they can sign on for benefit, they should be able to attend interviews with their probation officers. If, after a sanction, they feel compelled to commit further crimes, then, as now, they will face the full rigour of the law. There is no need for offenders to turn to crime as a result of these measures. All they have to do is to comply with their sentences.
The noble Lords, Lord Windlesham and Lord Carlisle, suggested that the clear message behind these sanctions would not be received because offending is often unplanned and opportunistic and thus leads to a failure to keep to a community sentence. That suggests that there is nothing we can do to influence the
550
behaviour of certain offenders. I do not accept that. I do not think that offenders who keep repeating their offending behaviour should use that behaviour as a form of blackmail in order to avoid sanctions to benefit.
Indeed, that line is not acceptable to the Front Bench in the House of Commons. I was particularly interested in the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, in which he appeared to give rather greater weight to the views expressed by the citizens advice bureaux than to those of his own Front Bench in the other place. For example, Mr Eric Pickles, who leads for the Conservative Party on this Bill, stated,
"I believe that the Government are doing the right thing".
He continued,
"If a person is in receipt of benefit, why should we have to shell out money so that person can defy a lawful order of the court? I am not in the business of funding people who break the law".
He went on to say that if the provision did not work, we should tighten up the punishments further still.
The noble Lord's honourable friend, Edward Leigh, who also served on the committee and is a trained lawyer, said:
"The Government's action is absolutely right. There will be a tremendous cheer for what they are doing in the housing estates, where people are fed up with those who seem to have no idea that society is made not just by rights but by duties".
That was the position of the Conservative Front Bench, who want to be strong, tough and vigilant in regard to crime—a position which I note was not shared by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, in this debate.
Certainty of outcome has been shown to improve compliance. A recent example is the home detention curfew system which has had a success rate of over 90 per cent. All the criminology that I was taught as a student makes the point that the certainty of either being caught or being punished—and there is an absolute certainty in this case as regards loss of benefit if there is a second offence or failure to comply with a community sentence—is far more effective than the severity of the sentence.
As a result, I am confident that the Probation Service will operate the scheme in a professional manner. It will not want the measures in the Bill to fail in their deterrent effect as a result of any reluctance on its part to refer offenders to court. The more successful this measure is in encouraging compliance—and that is what the pilots should tell us—the fewer will be the cases that the Probation Service will have to refer to court, enabling it to use its resources to assist offenders to benefit from their sentences rather than on prosecuting breaches. Therefore, I hope that the Probation Service will see this as an important new weapon in its armoury to encourage offenders to comply with their sentences rather than as undermining any work that it may be doing with offenders.
A second point made in this debate is that as a result, this provision affects not just the offender—and Members of the Committee may feel it appropriate that the offender should feel some hardship; after all, this is meant to bite on the offender—but that there

551
could he a problem for the offender's dependants, possibly including a partner and children. The period of the benefit sanction is limited to four weeks. I do not believe that anyone would be made homeless as a result of such a sanction. I remind the Committee—
Earl Russell: I beg the Minister's pardon. Four weeks is for the pilot schemes; however, I understand that when the Bill is operative the period might be extended to 26 weeks.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: In which case regulations would have to be made and it would be for your Lordships to debate them, as it would be for another place.
I remind the Committee that employment-related sanctions and JSA already run for up to 26 weeks. We recognise that offenders with families may still decide to breach their sentence. For those receiving income support, which will include the majority of the most vulnerable people subject to these provisions, benefit will continue to be paid, albeit at a reduced rate, for the four-week period. In other words, we have in place a system of hardship payments broadly similar to that which has operated for many years in cases where employment-related sanctions are imposed. In extreme cases, to protect the position of dependants, payments of JSA, including hardship payments, may be split. If, for example, someone is vulnerable—responsible for a child, where the claimant or partner is disabled or pregnant, is a carer, has a chronic medical condition or has left care within the past three years—people do not have to wait a fortnight for the hardship payments; they can he paid immediately.
I was asked about the consequences and the evaluation of this policy. It is subject to a subsequent amendment, but perhaps I may comment briefly. The experience of the pilots will determine much better than can speculation to what extent our hopes or the concerns expressed by Members of the Committee are realised. I shall say more about that in relation to the next amendment.
The evaluation exercise will examine precisely the issues that have been raised, including crime levels, breaches, benefit claiming, jobseeking, as well as practical issues in relation to the different parties operating the sanction and the take-up of hardship provisions. We shall not extend the policy nation-wide before we have considered carefully the findings of the evaluation.
In conclusion, this is a measure concerned with the conditions attached to benefit. To describe it as an extension of benefit conditionality rather than as punishment that offends justice is not simply being sophistical; it is a genuine difference of perspective, concerned with justice between the majority of members of society who, through their taxes, contribute to the support of people on benefit and those who repeatedly break community sentences, to the disturbance, harassment and often real grief of the areas in which they live, yet who none the less expect to be supported even though they fail to meet their obligations and act with impunity.
552
I urge Members of the Committee to understand where the Government are coming from. I ask the Committee to appreciate the weight that will be carried by the pilots to see whether our hopes or the concerns expressed are realised. In the understanding of where the Government are coming from—namely, that we think it right and appropriate to attach these conditions to benefit if a community sentence is breached—I commend these clauses to the Committee.
Lord Windlesham: I shall be brief. In our adversarial system it is never easy to get governments to change course. Once legislative proposals have been announced and publicised—especially if they are aimed at the general public—and have passed through the House of Commons, it is unrealistic to suppose that they will be readily abandoned or even amended.
It is the duty of this place to exercise some pressure and to bring to bear the weight of informed public opinion. Although a number of Government Back-Benchers spoke in support of the proposal, the debate was notable for the views of those with professional experience of dealing with offenders, sometimes a lifetime's experience, such as the noble Lord., Lord Christopher, on the Government Bench, the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, on the Cross-Benches, the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, on the Government Benches, and the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, on the Liberal Democrat Benches. These are people who have given a large part of their working lives to dealing with offenders. Their comments were not put forward on the basis of assertion, or of party loyalty. It goes much deeper than that.
In replying, the noble Baroness gave a forthright defence. It was an able defence, as we have come to expect from her. But every part of the proposal was defended and justified without any indication of giving consideration as to how it might be changed in some respect.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I apologise for intervening after having spoken for so long. Will the noble Lord not accept my point about pilots and their full evaluation before the scheme is unrolled? Is it not appropriate to see whether the proposal works, and whether the noble Lord's fears are validated?
Lord Windlesham: I take that for granted. The pilot scheme was part of the blueprint from the start. That is not a concession. It was part of the original design, and thank goodness it was. We shall await the results of the pilot scheme with interest.
The noble Lords and I who put our names to the Motion do not intend to oppose the Question this evening that Clause 61 shall stand part of the Bill, nor the following clauses, Clauses 62 to 65. However, we shall certainly return to this matter again on Report. Unless the Government have a change of heart in the interval, the result may be very different.
Clause 61 agreed to.
Baroness Amos: I beg to move that the House be now resumed. In moving this Motion, I suggest that the Committee stage begin again not before 8.59 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Companies Act 1985 (Audit Exemption) (Amendment) Regulations 2000
7.59 p.m.
Lord Sainsbury of Turvillerose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 3rd May be approved [18th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. As noble Lords may recall, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry announced to the House on 4th April proposals to change the existing law on the audit of companies' accounts. We are here today to debate the regulations which will give effect to those proposals. These regulations are made under the powers in Section 257 of the Companies Act 1985. The purpose is threefold. First, they raise the threshold for audit exemption from its current level of £350,000 to £1 million. The Government are concerned that the regulations placed on business are not overly burdensome, particularly on small businesses. Hence the regulations that we are debating today reduce those burdens.
My right honourable friend made clear that the increase to £1 million is the first part of a two-step process. We were persuaded in the light of consultation that the balance of argument favoured moving the threshold for audit to the maximum turnover figure permitted under European rules; namely, £4.8 million. We made clear, however, that we wanted to move to this higher figure in the light of the proposals being developed by the independent Company Law Review. Specifically, the review is addressing whether some other less burdensome form of assurance might replace the full audit for companies with an annual turnover of between £1 million and £4.8 million. That is set out in the latest consultation document by the review, which was published in March. It is a question of weighing the costs and benefits of this "lighter" touch independent assurance. The Government have not taken a view on this as yet. The review will make its final recommendations to government in the spring of next year. We will then make a final decision.
Secondly, the regulations simplify the law relating to dormant companies; namely, those which are still on the register at Companies House but have no significant accounting transactions during a period. They dispense with the requirement that dormant companies must pass a special resolution to gain exemption from audit, but they allow 10 per cent or more of shareholders to require an audit. They allow certain payments required of all companies to be made to Companies House while retaining dormant status.
554
Thirdly, they require a dormant company acting as an agent for a third party to disclose its agency status in its annual accounts. There is little doubt that these proposals will be warmly welcomed by the business community because they get rid of burdens and remove unnecessary irritations, but I emphasise that the changes reflect a careful assessment of the relative costs and benefits.
It may help if I provide a little explanation of how we reached our conclusions. I turn first to the increase in the threshold for audit exemption. The Companies Act 1967 introduced for the first time a requirement that all companies should not only file their accounts at Companies House but that those accounts should be accompanied by a report signed by a registered independent auditor. In the 1980s the then government on three occasions consulted on whether or not to keep the audit requirement for all companies. On each occasion it was decided to retain the status quo.
The first cautious step was taken in 1993 with the exemption of very small private companies from audit, while those with a turnover of between £90,000 and £350,000 were given the option of filing a simpler report in place of the full audit report. This regime was considered unsatisfactory and abolished in 1997 so that only companies with a turnover above £350,000 are subject to a full statutory audit. That is the present position.
We estimate that the increase in the threshold to £1 million will enable about another 150,000 companies to take advantage of exemption from audit. When my right honourable friend first proposed an increase, there were sharply differing estimates as to the cost of the statutory audit. For a company with a turnover at about the £1 million mark the cost ranged from £1,000 up to £5,000. The responses to the consultation suggest that the typical cost is around £1,200. Using that figure, our best estimate is that the potential savings for business are roughly £180 million in a full year. Some companies will, nevertheless, voluntarily continue to have their accounts audited; some will judge that they can make better use of specialist accountancy support; others may attach more importance to an overall reduction in their costs. The important point is that they will have the choice in the light of their own circumstances. The proposals do not change the existing safeguard for minority shareholders that 10 per cent of shareholders can require an audit.
I turn more briefly to the changes to dormant company status. Section 250 of the Companies Act 1985 draws a distinction between those companies that are actively trading and those that are not. Some 170,000 companies have dormant status—often they are incorporated to protect a company or brand name—whose only purpose is to own an asset such as the freehold of a building. Many dormant companies are within groups and would not otherwise be eligible for audit exemption. In March last year the Government published a consultative document on the legislative framework for dormant companies which set out proposals to reduce the costs involved in

555
running a dormant company. A large majority of respondents agreed with the proposals for simplification of the law.
As to the proposals on "agent" companies, most respondents agreed that some action was needed to make it clear to a third party where a dormant company acted as an agent for another company. It is certainly legal to act in this way but it can be confusing or misleading to a third party. Just over half agreed with the proposal that companies acting as agents should be required to declare their agency status in annual reports.
I hope it is clear from what I have said that wide consultation on these proposals has led to a package of measures that are practical and appropriate, relieve unnecessary burdens on smaller companies and have the broad support of the business community. In accordance with the undertaking given by my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General in November last year, in my view the amendments to the Companies Act proposed in these regulations are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.
In our modern economy small companies are increasingly the vehicles for sustained economic growth and job creation. It is, therefore, vital that we reduce unnecessary burdens on these companies, and these regulations are a significant step in that direction. The regulations help to make an appropriate and equitable regulatory framework for business, and I commend them to the House.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 3rd May be approved [18th Report from the Joint Committee.]—(Lord Sainsbury of Turville.)
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I am pleased to inform the Minister that we welcome these regulations, as we do any steps that reduce the administrative burden and expense on small companies. It is perhaps right that I should remind your Lordships that I have previously declared an interest, having been a member of the Small Business Bureau. I am also a director and shareholder of a number of family companies which will certainly benefit from the reduction in the audit requirements. I am glad that, following a speech that I made early in my career in your Lordships' House, the fee for filing an annual return was reduced from £36 to £18 and has since been reduced still further to £15—a considerable benefit to small companies. Following a persistent campaign by the Small Business Bureau, the Registrar of Companies has greatly simplified the annual return.
I regard the exemption from audit of companies with turnover of less than £1 million as another useful step in deregulation. It is likely to affect a very large number of companies, typically the small family business and the corner shop. The Government have claimed that this will save business some £180 million. That is a reduction on the figure of £500 million that they originally claimed. Both figures are disputed by the Institute of Chartered Accountants, but the theoretical saving is academic. Small companies will
556
still require professional help because of their obligation to file statutory accounts at t he Companies Registry.
The next step along this particular branch of deregulation may be to abolish the need for small companies to file statutory accounts, which in practice are totally useless. In small companies the shareholders are very close to the management—usually they are the management—so that the statutory accounts are of no use to them. The period of several months until the end of the financial year that is allowed for filing accounts makes them useless for the protection of potential creditors. I also expect that professional accountancy assistance will be required by many small companies to enable them to prepare accounts for the inspector of taxes. Therefore, the actual saving may not prove to be as we thought. Nevertheless, we certainly welcome the change and the benefits that it will bring. It is perhaps only just because of the regulatory burden that the Government have imposed on SMEs, which is estimated to be £10 billion per annum.
In a protest against working families' tax credit, the Institute of Chartered Accountants said:
"There are many other burdens that seriously restrict the ability of SMEs to operate and grow for the benefit of employment and the economy generally. We urge the Government to act as quickly as possible to reduce these much heavier other burdens on business".
We on this side of the House entirely agree.
While we welcome the increased threshold, I have to record our mild disappointment that the Government have not bitten the bullet and increased the exemption up to the £4.8 million, the figure permitted under the European Union regulations, a step which has been endorsed by the Institute of Chartered Accountants.
A further part of these new regulations is to alter the requirements for filing accounts by dormant companies which the Minister mentioned. Those accounts have already been greatly modified and are already simple. I assume that the Registrar of Companies may read this short debate. I should like, therefore, to take the opportunity to ask why dormant companies should have to file any accounts. The definition of a dormant company is one which has no significant transactions. There are some 170,000 companies with dormant status. Since there is no fee for filing their annual accounts, it is a burden on the Registrar of Companies to have to deal with them, to say nothing of chasing the many small companies which, by the very nature of their being dormant, fail to do so in time.
We give a welcome to those steps which reduce the regulatory burden on business and we hope that in the very near future it will be followed by many similar steps.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the major change to these regulations is undoubtedly the increase in the turnover threshold for audit from £350,000 to £1 million. It is a substantial change and offers an audit exemption to some 150,000 additional companies. When my right honourable friend the Secretary of

557
State first floated such an idea about a year ago, it was seen by some as premature. Yet, a year on, roughly three-quarters of the 150 respondents to our consultation consider that the balance of argument favours raising the threshold at least to the £1 million, with many agreeing also that the second stage, moving to £4.8 million in the way I described, is also desirable.
It is possible to criticise the change as being too timid or too bold. However, there are two powerful reasons for taking the matter in two stages. I have explained the link to the Company Law Review. We do not think that it is sensible simply to cut across a major element in that work. It is sensible to explore the idea of an independent professional review for those larger companies before making a second change. There are dangers in moving too far too fast; and I believe that taking this sizeable step now will enable us to assess the benefits.
Dormant companies are required by European law to file their accounts.
Finally, the question is not whether there is value in having an audit—for many companies that will remain the case—but whether it should be a statutory requirement for smaller companies. We have seen very little in responses to our consultation to show that the balance of costs and benefits points to retaining a statutory requirement which these regulations dispense with. The change will in many cases free up accountants working with small firms to work more positively and imaginatively to develop the business. I commend the regulations to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000
8.13 p.m.
Lord Sainsbury of Turvillerose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 3rd May be approved [18th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Government are strongly committed to providing fair minimum standards without imposing unnecessary burdens on business. The part-time work regulations are an important building block in this agenda. The measures announced on 3rd May, and due to come into force on 1st July, will ensure that part-time workers are protected against unjustified discrimination. They have an important role to play in protecting part-timers while opening up new part-time opportunities, and encouraging people to return to the job market part-time.
The basic aim of the regulations is simple: to make it unlawful for employers to treat part-timers less favourably than comparable full-timers. This will ensure that part-timers have a right to receive the same treatment as comparable full-timers. This includes the same hourly rate of pay as comparable full-timers; the same access to occupational pension schemes; the
558
same access to training; the same entitlement to annual leave as well as parental and maternity leave on a pro rata basis as comparable full-timers.
Once the regulations come into force, part-timers could be treated less favourably only where this treatment can be objectively justified. In all their terms and conditions, part-timers will have a right to be valued just as highly as their full-time colleagues.
The regulations are only part of the Government's campaign to promote part-time work. The Government will build on these legislative foundations with a programme of information. This will provide more information on the legal position as well as providing examples of best practice. The first part of this programme has already been published on the DTI's part-time work web page. The programme will be rolled out over the next few months in consultation with interested parties.
The Government have created the right framework for a flexible and fair approach to part-time work. We have listened to the concerns expressed in the consultation process, and amended our measures where necessary. We believe that we have struck the right balance between regulation and best practice guidance. I commend the regulations to the House.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 3rd May be approved [18th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Sainsbury of Turville.)
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, these regulations are being introduced as part of the Social Chapter that Labour hastily and recklessly signed up to as soon as the Prime Minister stepped through the door of No. 10 three years ago.
Labour signed up to the part-time workers directive on 7th April 1998. But despite having had two full years to implement the measure it had humiliatingly to ask for an extension of time on 7th April this year. Perhaps that is not so surprising because the Secretary of State had a dress rehearsal for his speech on the order on 10th May. Where was that? It was on the BBC, where most government statements seem to be made these days. The information he gave to his listeners was at variance with everyone else's understanding of the proposals and implied that many more workers would benefit than is the case.
The Secretary of State had to be publicly corrected by the TUC, whose spokesperson said:
"Poor Mr Byers, his head must have been softened by a strenuous week".
My honourable friend, the Member for Tiverton and Honiton, requested Madam Speaker to try to get the order withdrawn until the Secretary of State knew exactly what the order was about, and that was refused, presumably on the ground that it is not necessary for a Minister to understand the legislation he is introducing.
I have to assume that part of the delay in introducing this order—apart from the time it has taken to explain it to the Secretary of State—may have been as a result of the haggling that has been going on with the unions. Employers who may have to

559
familiarise themselves with the new regime will have had less than what may be regarded as a decent period to do so because of the Government's dithering. On the other hand, I have no doubt that the unions with their massive resources and their fingerprints all over the document will be well prepared to deal with it.
I turn to the contents. Fortunately the Government have seen sense. Under Regulation 2 the comparison of part-time workers is going to have to be like with like; that is, between workers with the same type of contract. So without an identical contract a part-time worker cannot claim parity with a permanent employee and claim a pension, sick pay and the like. We congratulate the Government on having resisted the demands that part-time workers for whom there was no direct comparison in the same firm should compare themselves with a hypothetical worker instead. What a feast that would have provided for the lawyers.
Nevertheless, the Government have again failed to resist the temptation to gold plate the already burdensome EC regulations. Despite the original directive entitling member states to exclude part-time casual workers, the Government have not seen fit to do so. The European directive gave member states the opportunity to opt out of applying it to casual workers. Our Government have seen fit to impose this voluntary burden on business. Agency workers are also included. One National Health Service trust has complained that that will push up the cost of hiring agency nurses and care workers. Part-timers employed by the NHS already have the same rights as full-timers. As with the working time directive, the regulation will simply swallow up more of NHS funds.
However, we believe that the worst and most blatant piece of gold plating is the requirement that within 21 days an employer must give an employee who thinks that he or she has been treated less favourably a written statement in order to justify himself. Failure to do so gives rise to an inference that there has been unfair treatment. The statement itself is to be treated as evidence against the employer but not against the employee.
Nowhere in the EC regulations is there a requirement for a written statement, which a prudent employer would probably be well advised to have his lawyers draft for him. In any case, the employee already has a right to go to the employment tribunal for protection. It is absolutely no use the Prime Minister sanctimoniously lecturing the other member states of the EU that they should conduct themselves more like the USA when it comes to business regulation, when his Government lose no opportunity to pile more and more regulation and expense on our industry and apply the most rigorous and bureaucratic interpretation of every edict that comes from Brussels.
Finally, I want to quote from the Government's Regulatory Impact Assessment.
"We do not believe that there is widespread unfavourable treatment of part time employees. Job satisfaction amongst part time workers is higher than among full time workers. The 1998 Workplace Employment Relations Survey found that part time employees were much more likely to regard themselves as fairly treated than were full time employees; 61% compared with 45%".
560
Like the CBI, the Opposition support the principle of giving part-time and full-time workers the same pay and conditions on a pro rata basis. The CBI believes that most employers already do so. Part-time employees are a valuable segment of the workforce, especially to smaller employers who may not need or be able to afford full-timers. These regulations, while on the face of it being for the benefit of part-time workers, are likely to lessen their employment prospects and damage small business.
I wonder whether the Minister will clarify one point. I am sorry that I was unable to give him notice of it, but the matter was brought: to my attention only late in the afternoon. The Official Report of the other place was late in printing due to the burden of work. At col. 9, the honourable Member for St Ives commented on press speculation that the European judgment on part-time workers entitled to occupational schemes could cost the Exchequer up to £17 billion because of the way it would work retrospectively.
When the matter was debated in the other place, the Minister said in reply that that was an extremely valuable point and at col. 20 he said that it was an important point. But, having read the rest of his reply, I am not sure whether it was likely to cost up to £17 billion. It would be helpful if the Minister could give me an answer today or in writing. I apologise for the delay in mentioning the matter.
I return to the regulations before us. The assessment of the extra burden that this piece of legislation alone will impose on businesses is, in using the Government's own figures, £27.4 million. We on this side of the House are not happy with the regulations, first, because of the extra cost and, secondly, because of the gold plating in the written statement that I mentioned; the inclusion of casual and agency workers.
However, reluctantly and in accordance with the custom of your Lordships' House, we shall not oppose the passage of the regulations, although we believe that they may put a hard burden on businesses.
Lord Lea of Crondall: I declare an interest, having been part of the origin of the negotiations. Perhaps I may remind the House how the Social Chapter works. Ten years ago, a framework agreement in Brussels meant that all the European trade unions and employers were able to come together to deal with the matters in the social action programme. We can take some satisfaction from the fact that this is the third such measure to come before Parliament after a number of years of negotiation in Brussels.
When the Labour Government signed the Social Chapter, to the regret of the Conservative Party, they were in a position to catch up on some of the matters that had taken time in Brussels. In that process, some of the topics have reached this Parliament in a tight timetable. However, the House should take confidence from the fact that the broad framework was agreed by the CBI, which is part of the European Employers Federation. It is therefore reasonable to infer that this is a modest proposal in a series dealing with atypical work.

561
We ought to reflect on the fact that during recent months we have had many debates in this House about the rapidly changing nature of the labour markets. What is in Brussels jargon called "atypical" work—part-time work, fixed-term contract work and agency work—is in some industries becoming typical work. Therefore such employees need to be covered pro rata and these regulations are a modest way of dealing with the problem.
It is worth making the point that of the 6 million part-time workers in Britain, 80 per cent are women. In recent years it has been most difficult to deal with such problems by way of collective agreement, and the regulation is a half-way house between a detailed statutory scheme and a collective agreement. It was written in the form of a collective agreement in Brussels and it was signed by the trade unions and employers in Brussels. If five or six years ago people in this country or in any other part of Europe had said that many of these issues would be the subject of successful framework collective agreements in Brussels, it would have been thought most unlikely. A great deal of progress has been made and because of the way in which the matter was handled in Brussels there is a preparedness in industry to take this step forward at this stage. If we had made the move on our own, we would have been open to the charge that we would have lost competitiveness and so forth.
The measure means that we are operating on a level playing field in Brussels. We are not losing competitiveness against any other European country; we are going forward together. These high standards for part-time workers will stand us in good stead of integrating atypical workers into the labour force. I am pleased therefore to associate myself with the regulations before the House tonight.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I ought to make one point to the noble Lord, who has spoken so eloquently on what he believes to be the correct position. I made the point that the timing was difficult because small businesses have only six weeks to ensure that they get it right. The noble Lord mentioned that the CBI was involved in the timing structure. Originally, businesses were given two years from 7th April 1998, but they had to have an extension. The regulations must be implemented in only six weeks' time, on 10th May. I do not know how many small businesses the CBI represents—it usually talks about big businesses—but I know that for those which do not employ many people in their personnel and accounts departments implementation will be difficult.
The other point that I wish to make is that we do not object at all to the EU directive as such. We object to the gold plating on the objective. When one talks about competitiveness, as did the noble Lord, it does not help us to be competitive when it is made more difficult for employers in this country than it is for those in the rest of Europe. That is the point that I was making.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, before the Minister rises to reply, perhaps I may also say to the noble Lord who has just spoken that it may well be that by these arrangements we do not lose competitiveness with our so-called partners or competitors in Europe. However, of course, we do lose competitiveness with, shall we say, the United States of America, the recovering markets in the Far East and the rest of the world. This is another classic example of EU harmonisation bringing us into line with the sclerotic and declining European market and, in doing so, damaging us in our competition and trade with the rest of the world.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I believe that the Government's measures on part-time work will ensure that Britain's 6 million part-timers are no longer treated as second-class citizens. In response to the last speaker, perhaps I may say that most businesses, particularly in the service area, have been well ahead on this issue for a long time. It is now well appreciated that part-time workers are an absolutely essential and important part of the workforce and therefore should not be treated as second-class citizens. I would argue strongly that an important part of competitiveness is having a part-time workforce who believe that they are treated fairly and not as second-class citizens.
So far as delay is concerned, we took slightly longer than the regulatory right, although we are allowed a slightly longer period. That seemed to me to be correct in terms of getting the regulations absolutely right, and I believe that several other EU members have taken more time in the same way as the UK have done.
So far as concerns the question of casual and agency workers, I believe that there is a misunderstanding as to how the employment status is defined. Some casuals are employees, some are workers, and the same argument applies with regard to agency workers. If we were simply to exclude workers, that would increase enormously the scope for legal action to determine the legal status of individuals.
So far as concerns the written statement, it seems to me to be a simple case of good practice that everyone should be agreed about the facts before legal action is started. If there is a case for objective justification, that should be put down. I cannot believe that that simple process, which would seem to be good practice and potentially could stop legal actions being taken, is in any way harmful.
The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, raised the rather complicated question of occupational pensions. A decision was taken by the European Court on 16th May that UK legislation, which places a two-year restriction on claims for backdated contributions in respect of occupational pensions, is not compatible with European law. That means that claims for employer contributions from part-timers who were denied access to occupational pension schemes could go back as far as 1976, which was the date of the earlier ECJ ruling. That, of course, is in relation to other

563
rights. So far as concerns this measure, rights begin to accumulate only now. Clearly, this particular point will not impact for two years and we shall review the situation during that period. If it is incompatible with European law, we shall examine that and amend it accordingly.
I believe that the point behind the regulations is that part-time work has become important and will be increasingly important in the years ahead. All businesses knew that the legislation was imminent and had plenty of time to prepare for it. I believe that the Government have set the right framework for a flexible and fair approach to part-time work. I commend the proposals to the House.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I wish to press the Minister on what he has just said, particularly with regard to pensions. I believe that to some extent he echoed what his honourable friend, the amazingly titled Minister for Competitiveness in the other place, Mr Alan Johnson, said in Standing Committee last Thursday, 18th May. Like the Minister, Mr Johnson appeared to be uncertain as to the effect of the backdating of pensions, possibly to 1976, under the European diktats.
Therefore, in the first instance I ask the Minister to give the House an absolutely clear assurance that the figure of £17 billion which has been put upon this aspect of the problem is absolutely not accurate, that it will not happen and that we need not worry about it any more.
Secondly, when he says that the new regulations will not bite for two years and that no one can make a claim until they have been operating for a period of time—in other words, that it will not be until the year 2002 that any court could rule that someone is entitled even to two years' retrospection, which is what I believe the noble Lord said—can we have some idea of the cost of that? It may not be £17 billion, but if we are looking at these regulations introducing that prospect, then what will the cost be of two years' retrospective pension which may then be applied? Is that figure included in the £27.4 million, which I believe is the figure that the Government have already put on these regulations, or is that extra? And who will pay the retrospective pensions for the two years which may be adjudged in the year 2002? And who will pay the £17 billion, if we come to that?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I make it clear that the £17 billion does not in any way relate to the regulations that we are debating tonight. So far as concerns the regulations under discussion tonight, a question would arise with regard to backdating only if people failed to be paid what, under this legislation, it was their right to be paid. However, it is hardly likely that there will be a failure to do that. But, if they failed to be paid what was due to them under the legislation, then of course the amount would depend entirely on how many people failed to receive the rights that they have under this legislation for whatever period. This is backdating for a right for which people have not been paid. Therefore, it depends entirely on the extent to
564
which they have not been paid. Therefore, at this stage it is not possible, even remotely, to say what that would be.
So far as concerns the £17 billion, that figure is not accurate. Our figures are much lower than that; £4 billion is probably closer to the figure. However, we need to examine that in more detail.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

National Minimum Wage (Increase in Development Rate for Young Workers) Regulations 2000
8.38 p.m.
Lord Sainsbury of Turvillerose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 4th May be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have great pleasure today in presenting to your Lordships these important regulations, which build further on one of the Government's most successful policies: the introduction of a national minimum wage.
As the House will know, we asked the Low Pay Commission to monitor the effect of the national minimum wage during its first few months in operation and to report its findings to us. This it did, and we published its second report, and our responses to it, on 15th February this year.
The commission's report revealed the extent of the success of the minimum wage policy, showing that well over 1.5 million workers are now entitled to higher pay as a result of the national minimum wage and that the majority of them are receiving their entitlement. Women and part-time workers have been particular beneficiaries. All this has been achieved without any indication of significant adverse effect on employment or the economy.
It is the light of the Low Pay Commission's positive findings that we are able to accept the suggestion, made by the commission in their first report, that the minimum wage rate for those aged 18–21 should increase from £3 per hour to £3.20 per hour from 1 June 2000. The regulations before us put this rise into effect. The main rate for the minimum wage will also be increased this year from £3.60 per hour to £3.70 per hour, with the change to take place on 1 October 2000, and further regulations will be brought before the House in due course to achieve this.
We are aware of strong feelings in some quarters that there should be one rate for all adult workers—that is, every worker aged 18 or above. However, one of the reasons why the minimum wage has been so smoothly and successfully introduced lies in our cautious approach.
We knew from the results of surveys in other countries which have minimum wage legislation that, where minimum wages do impact in a negative way on employment, this effect is felt most keenly by younger age groups. This fact alone gave us reason enough to

565
proceed with caution. We are also concerned that the minimum wage should support rather than hinder training and education.
I think you will agree that the introduction of a totally new policy was not a time for throwing caution to the wind and introducing rates which look generous on paper but whose effects might be disastrous. This point applies with additional force when we consider that we are dealing here with young people who are entering the labour market for the first time and whose whole future may turn on how quickly they can find suitable employment at the outset of their working lives. People looking for their first job should not be priced out of the market. That is the context in which the development rate for young people needs to be understood.
We now know from the Low Pay Commission's report that, in respect of young people, the minimum wage has meant a pay rise for tens of thousands of them while not affecting their employment opportunities. This entirely vindicates the cautious approach we have adopted.
Of course, our actions on the minimum wage are based on the advice we receive from the Low Pay Commission, which, let us not forget, is a balanced body with membership drawn from the CBI, small and large businesses as well as trade unions and academic specialists. The Commission, in its turn, bases the advice it gives on its wide-ranging consultations and fact-finding exercises. It is because of this partnership approach, involving as many of those concerned as possible, that we can be sure that the rates we set represent the greatest improvement for workers compatible with affordability for individual employers and the United Kingdom economy as a whole.
With your Lordships' indulgence, I will briefly touch on the closely related question of where the line is to be drawn between the youth rate and the adult rate. Our actions are based on the Low Pay Commission's recommendations, but we are not obliged to accept each and every suggestion it makes. So it is that, notwithstanding the commission's advice, at present 21 year-olds are included in the lower range. The issue is being kept under constant review. As we have announced, we are asking the Low Pay Commission to continue to monitor the minimum wage and produce a further report including advice on whether there is a case for any further increase in the rates and, if so, to what level, and to do that by July 2001 so that any increase can take place in October 2001. As part of the same exercise, we have asked the Commission to look not only at the youth rate as a whole but, in particular, to continue monitoring the present 21 year-old cut-off so that a decision on that issue can be made at the same time.
To sum up, the important facts are these. This is a rise in the minimum hourly rate which represents a percentage increase of 6.67 per cent, 20p an hour, and will make a real difference to some 150,000 young people. It will achieve this with a minimal cost to
566
business, less than one hundredth of one per cent of the total wage bill. I therefore commend these regulations to the House.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 4th May be approved.—(Lord Sainsbury of Turville)
8.45 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, this regulation is intended to increase the national minimum wage for young workers between 18 and 21 years of age from £3 to £3.20 an hour, an increase of 6¼ per cent since the national minimum wage was introduced only just a year ago. That is an increase for every employee of £8 a week based on a 40-hour week. Their older colleagues will get an increase from £3.60 to £3.70—that is, 2.7 per cent from next October. That is an increase of £4 a week based also on a 40-hour week.
I have to assume that this is part of the policy of the Government to reduce the differential between older and younger workers to zero, even though their stated reason for the differential was to reduce the adverse effect of the national minimum wage on the employment prospects of younger workers, especially those who may have left school with minimal academic qualifications.
The Minister for Competitiveness in the other place spoke of,
"Introducing rates that look generous on paper, but the effects of which might be disastrous in reality, particularly for young people entering the labour market for the first time".
He went on to say—and I think the Minister gave a précis of what I have as a quote—
"We know from surveys on minimum wage legislation in other countries, that when rates have a negative impact on employment, their effect is felt most keenly by younger age groups".
I am glad to hear a minister at least conceding that, in some circumstances, the national minimum wage could have an adverse effect on employment. In this case, the Government are relying on the advice of the Low Wage Commission, which is very good.
It is true to say that, so far, the effect of the national minimum wage has apparently had only isolated adverse effects on employment, but this could be due to the strength of the golden economy that we bequeathed to the Government just three years ago.
I am glad to see the Minister telling the Standing Committee in the other place—and indeed it was repeated by the Minister here—that the Low Pay Commission is to continue to monitor the national minimum wage. Its present conclusions are based on only nine months of such study. What is regrettable is that the Commission's report does not cover the effect of the national minimum wage or its effect on perhaps individual trades—one or two like catering are suffering—or regions.
While the Bill was passing through your Lordships' House, I asked the Government to accept entirely discretionary powers to make variations in the national minimum wage should any of those factors,

567
vis-à-vis individual trades or regions, actually appear at the time to be relevant. Of course, the Government refused to do that.
Despite the fact that these aspects are not now by law allowed to be considered in fixing the national minimum wage, I hope that the Low Pay Commission would be allowed in due course to monitor these and to report on them every time they report to the DTI on the effect of the national minimum wage, as they did for younger workers.
I hope the Government will take into account the possible effect on the employment of young people in the small businesses that employ the majority of them before they seek any further increases. However, from what the Minister has already said, I think it is highly unlikely that they will do so without taking proper advice and considering all these aspects which the Minister is clearly aware of himself.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: The Low Pay Commission originally recommended that £3.20 per hour should he introduced in April 1999. On the basis of caution, we did delay so that it came in at this time and that was always part of the plan. I stress that this is a national minimum wage. It is the minimum we think people should be paid. If one has a national minimum wage, I do not think it should he varied either by trade or by sector. No points have been raised by the Low Pay Commission, who could certainly have done so, to say that there are particular sectors where this is really giving problems. I do not think that would be in the spirit of saying that this is a national minimum wage. It is extremely important to set this minimum and I very much commend this change to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Code of Practice: Access to Workers during Recognition and Derecognition Ballots
8.50 p.m.
Lord Sainsbury of Turvillerose to move, That the draft Code of Practice laid before the House on 8th May be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this draft code of practice forms part of the statutory recognition procedure laid down in Section 1 and Schedule 1 of the Employment Relations Act 1999. These provisions of the Act will come into force on 6th June.
The statutory procedure provides for ballots to be held by the Central Arbitration Committee (the CAC) in certain circumstances to ascertain the level of support for union recognition among workers in the relevant bargaining group. The statute provides also for derecognition ballots to be held. The ballots can be held by post, at the workplace or by a combination of those two methods.
It is important that those ballots are held fairly and properly. The statute therefore places various duties on the employers to ensure the orderly functioning of
568
the balloting process. Paragraph 26 of Schedule 1 places three duties on employers who are involved in recognition ballots. Paragraph 118 lays down identical duties in respect of derecognition ballots.
The three duties can be summarised as follows. First, there is a general duty on the employer to co-operate with the union or unions involved and to co-operate with the person appointed by the CAC to conduct the ballot. Secondly, the employer must provide the CAC with the names and home addresses of the workers involved. Thirdly, the employer must give the union,
"such access to the workers constituting the bargaining unit as Is reasonable to enable the union to inform the workers of the object of the ballot and to seek their support and their opinions on the issues involved".
The interpretation of what constitutes "reasonable access" in practice is obviously a vital matter. The schedule therefore expressly provides for the Secretary of State to issue a code of practice concerning this third duty using his powers under Section 204 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.
The code before the House is designed to provide practical guidance to employers, unions and the CAC on what is meant by reasonable access. The code can be taken into account by the CAC if it is asked to determine complaints made by unions that they have been denied reasonable access.
We undertook detailed consultations before producing this draft code. We took the opinion of ACAS. We also informally consulted the CBI, TUC and other interested parties. Those prior discussions culminated in the publication in February of a consultation document containing an earlier draft of the code. We received over 70 responses. The draft before us today incorporates many points and revisions which consultees suggested.
This code provides invaluable guidance to all concerned. Recognition and derecognition ballots are potential areas of conflict. The code of practice is drafted in that knowledge. It gives helpful guidance to minimise the scope for conflict over a key aspect of the balloting process. It is fair, workable and sufficiently flexible to cater for individual circumstances. I commend it to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft code of practice laid before the House on 8th May be approved.—(Lord Sainsbury of Turville.)
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, we are discussing here the draft code of practice designed to implement the procedures set out in Section 1 and Schedule 1 of the Employment Relations Act 1999. That section and schedule and the code of practice will be the means of imposing trade union recognition on firms with more than 20 employees.
Apart from defining or changing the so-called "bargaining unit", the schedule also protects the workers against detriment or dismissal for exercising their rights under the schedule, and provides the procedures for derecognition, which I suppose is only fair.

569
It is worth noting that the liability to the recognition procedures kicks in for firms employing as few as 21 workers. That is despite the fact that during the passage of the Bill we tried to reason with the Government and to persuade them to make the starting point 50 employees, which was and still is in line with the EC definition of a "small" firm. That is more gold-plating.
During the passage of that Bill, the Government also refused to exclude directors and shareholders from the head count, thus running the risk of catching small family firms in the net.
During the passage of the Bill, the schedule grew from 26 pages containing 88 paragraphs to a massive 60 pages containing 172 paragraphs. All those additions were as a result of government amendments which were designed to accommodate constructive suggestions made by unions, employers and others, which only shows how poor the Government's brief for the original legislation was for it to have to grow in that way. It was 172 paragraphs. The Ten Commandments contain only 16 paragraphs.
The vast majority of Acts passed by Parliament are shorter than the massive set of procedures that quite small firms are supposed to assimilate and observe. The procedures are especially difficult for small firms, particularly as regards access to employees and at the place of work.
A TUC survey called "Focus on Recognition" published in January 2000 reported that 75 deals were signed in the 10 months between January and October 1999 and claimed that that was the highest number ever. Four out of 10 unions reported their belief that the impending statutory recognition rights had been influential in encouraging employers to set up voluntary arrangements before the complicated statutory procedures come into force. I am inclined to agree that that is probably what happened. It may very well be that the complications and potential disruption of the procedures is one of the reasons that there has been such a spate of voluntary recognition agreements since the Act was passed.
The general purpose of the code of practice, as stated in the introduction, is to give what it calls "practical guidance" about the issues that can arise when an employer receives a request from a union for access to his workers at the workplace and/or during normal working hours.
Paragraph 10 says that the code wants to encourage responsible behaviour by both parties—that is, the employer and the union—and that this should avoid any acrimony. In that spirit, and in the hope that the code will indeed achieve those aims, we on this side of the House will not oppose this measure and we wish it success in its aim of not prejudicing industrial relations.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for explaining the code and for presenting it to the House. I congratulate the Minister and the Government on the care that went into preparing both
570
the code of practice and Schedule 1. What criticisms there would have been had they left out a number of essential paragraphs.
We are discussing a code which deals with a trade union's right to have reasonable access to workers who are about to vote in a recognition ballot. Less than that would obviously be quite unfair. Therefore, by definition, the problems arise only when the employer is resisting collective bargaining. Therefore, the code deals with the abnormal, rather than the normal, case because I believe that when the Act is fully operational, most employers will make arrangements with appropriate unions for consultation and bargaining.
But for other employers, the procedures which we are discussing and the code will apply in a context of protracted disagreement between those parties. The code of practice seeks the very desirable aim—and I want to stress that, in view of my subsequent remarks—of the parties finding agreement on the ways in which the right of union access is to be implemented. That may be a demanding task but it is an extremely desirable target.
I am well aware too that the Government have consulted many parties, including the TUC and the CBI. But such unpublished travaux préparatoires will not be seen by the courts or by the CAC. The Minister's words in Hansard today are, therefore, of very great importance.
I offer two comments to the Minister. First, the code purports, as it should, to set out broadly the legal structure bequeathed by the 1999 Act; and so it does, except in one rather important point, and since this might be thought to be a legal point, I gave my noble friend notice of it. It refers to the question of the sanctions where an employer has failed in his duty—here, the duty to accept reasonable access—and where an order of the CAC has been made to him to fulfil his obligations but that has not been done.
At this point in the procedure the Act provides differently for the recognition procedure from the derecognition procedure. In paragraph 49, especially, the code does not avert to that. In both cases the CAC has a discretionary power either to grant recognition or not to derecognise. That is a discretion. In the derecognition procedure, a further sanction is attached that the order of the CAC can be,
"recorded in the county court"—
and—
"enforced in the same way as an order of that court".
with all the possibilities of contempt of court thereby entailed.
This is not a trivial point. It could be extremely important in regard to an employer—no doubt a rare one—who sets out to defy the order of the CAC. There was a different procedure in the derecognition area which was common to both halves of the schedule, as it were, when the Bill was first printed. That is something that is not understood in many quarters and it would be desirable if the code could say something about it, at least in its second edition.

571
My second point is that there are various places where the draft code may go rather further than a document that is merely to be taken into account without creating new rights and obligations. That is partly a matter of style. With great respect, the draftsman is not accustomed to setting down trade union rights; he is more used to trade union immunities. Perhaps the style could be improved by looking at the codes and rules of our partners on the Continent, such as union rights in the Italian workers' statute of 1970. The statutory right of the union is to,
"such access to the workers constituting the bargaining unit as is reasonable to enable the union … to inform the workers of the object of the ballot and to seek their support and their opinions on the issues involved".
Of course, it will be beneficial and valuable if the union and the employer can agree on the details of the access process, but the right of reasonable access does not depend, as such, upon the agreement of the employer. Occasionally, the code gives a different impression. For instance, it suggests that the employer will reasonably want to give prior permission before union officials enter his workplace and talk to his workers. With respect, the exercise of the statutory right of reasonable access has nothing to do, either in theory or in practice, with the employer's prior permission, although, of course, it may be unreasonable if the union rejects the employer's suggestions.
The code also says:
"The parties will need to establish agreed limits on the duration and frequency of the union's activities".
In my respectful submission, that is the addition of a new right. There is no need whatever for the parties to agree upon the limits, and so on, for access. There is a need for the union to demand only reasonable access. Whether or not there is an agreement with the employer, a union may well, in a state where relations are not particularly good, demand access on terms which the CAC finds to be reasonable.
The code goes further into prescriptive detail, such as that,
"the employer should allow the union to hold one meeting of at least 30 minutes in duration for every 10 days of the access period".
That is perilously close to creating rules that are not merely interpretative of the schedule. Sometimes the code's theory is not quite matched by its prescriptions. It says that workers must not be exposed to "intimidation or threat", which is a desirable addition to the text. But later it suddenly imposes a positive duty on the union to "dissociate" itself from any anonymous material and if that material favours recognition to,
"formally repudiate it, informing all the workers in the bargaining unit accordingly".
Everyone knows that anonymous documents are produced in industrial disputes. Sometimes, perhaps often, they are produced in the face of what workers feel is intimidation by management. I ask my noble friend whether in the second edition he can look at this aspect. There is no reason at all why the union should be made to repudiate a document that may involve
572
facts of some importance. In my view, this paragraph of the code may well risk being beyond the competence and may be ultra vires. However, the draft code is to be welcomed, and in my submission, welcomed in the context of the fact that it applies only in the 20 days of the ballot period. There may well be times when we want to look at the pattern of industrial relations when we think that access should be extended to a time rather anterior to those days, but that is another story.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I well remember the discussion with the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, about the number of employees. She passionately defended the fact that it should be 50, but we settled on 20, which is the basis of this discussion. I am delighted that the noble Baroness agrees that every effort should be made to provide a framework to reduce acrimony in these difficult circumstances.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Weelderburn, for raising his point with me beforehand as it was not one on which I had focused in any great detail. There is a discrepancy between the procedures that can follow in a recognition and a derecognition situation. That is because where the derecognition is asked for by the workers, the position that the company may take is not clear. In that case, the matter could go both ways, whereas in the other circumstance, when the company asks for derecognition, or the company opposes recognition, the company's position is quite clear. In this specialised case it is not, and that is the reason for the difference on this issue.
I take my noble friend's point about the style and we will look at that in relation to a second edition. On that basis I commend the code of practice to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill
9.7 p.m.
House again in Committee.
Clause 62 [Loss of joint-claim jobseeker's allowance]:
Baroness Hollis of Heighammoved Amendment No. 176A:
Page 68, line 12, at end insert—
("(3A) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide in relation to cases to which subsection (2) would otherwise apply that joint-claim jobseeker's allowance shall be payable in a couple's case, during the whole or a part of so much of the prescribed period as falls within paragraph (a) or (b) of that subsection, as if one or more of the following applied—

(a) the rate of the allowance were such reduced rate as may be prescribed;

(b) the allowance were payable only if there is compliance by each of the members of the couple with such obligations with respect to the provision of information as may be imposed by the regulations;

(c) the allowance were payable only if the circumstances are otherwise such as may be prescribed.").

The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 176A corrects a drafting error in the Bill. It provides for hardship payments to be made to couples who would

573
have been entitled to a joint-claim jobseeker's allowance but for the application of a community sentence sanction to both members, or a community sentence sanction to one member and an employment-related sanction to the other. In those cases, we wish to ensure that JSA hardship payments can be made, as would be the case in the event of both members of the joint-claim couple being subject to employment sanctions. In cases where one member of the couple is subject to a community sentence sanction the Bill, as drafted, already allows for both reduced rate payments of JSA and hardship payments to be made; in other words, it is entirely benign.
It has always been our intention that joint-claim couples who are subject to community sentence sanctions should have the protection of hardship payments. But the Bill as drafted does not achieve our intention. This amendment puts into place powers similar to those in Section 20B of the Jobseekers Act, which enables hardship payments to be made to joint-claim couples in the event of both of them being subject to an employment sanction.
We intend to use these powers to make regulations that will enable hardship payments to be made to members of joint claim couples along similar lines to couples who are subject to employment sanctions. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 62, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 63 [Information provision]:
[Amendments Nos. 177 and 178 not moved.]
Clause 63 agreed to.
Clause 64 [Loss of benefit regulations]:
[Amendments Nos. 179 and 179A not moved.]
Clause 64 agreed to.
Clause 65 agreed to.
Earl Russellmoved Amendment No. 180:
After Clause 65. insert the following new clause—
("Payment of benefit
MANNER OF PAYMENT OF BENEFIT NOT RESTRICTED TO AUTOMATED CREDIT TRANSFER
In section 5(1) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992, at the end of paragraph (i) there is inserted ", but the regulations may not require automated credit transfer to be the only manner of paying a benefit.".").
The noble Earl said: On Amendment No. 180 I decided, after a little thought, that I ought to declare an interest. My local post office, Brondesbury Post Office in Kilburn High Road, was moderately severely damaged in a fire several months ago. The builder's yard which was the source of the fire is now more or less repaired and just about ready to open again. There is no sign even of any preparatory work on the repair of the post office.
A number of my neighbours are now speculating that the fire may have been used as an excuse to withdraw the services of that post office. Since those services were already under such pressure that on
574
many occasions the queues out of the post office stretched across the road and blocked the pavement, it is doubtful whether the neighbouring sub-post offices, which are some way away, could take the strain. Since that causes me moderately strong feelings, I felt it was proper for me to declare an interest.
It also reminds us that, though we are primarily concerned with rural post offices, we should never forget that the same strains which are placed on rural post offices are often placed on post offices in unfavoured areas which also happen to be urban. Those problems deserve equal consideration.
The effect of Amendment No. 180—it is one moved by my honourable friends in another place—is to preserve the right to receive benefit at a post office rather than having to transfer to ACT. The present legal position, according to my honourable friend Mr Kirkwood, who was chairman of the Select Committee, rests on regulation 21 of the Social Security Claims and Payments Regulations 1987. That requires payment by ACT to be a consensual act; in other words, it cannot happen unless both parties agree. The purpose of the amendment would be to make it require primary legislation to reverse that. It would not make it irreversible; but it would mean that it could only be reversed by a measure which could be brought before Parliament on which we would have an opportunity to vote.
As my honourable friend Mr Kirkwood remarked, if the Government were to repeal that regulation without providing a new income stream for the Post Office, that would have the effect of killing the sub-post offices. There has been a good deal of speculation about what is the Government's intention. I think that it is likely that the Government's intention has changed somewhat behind a smoke screen. I should like to know a little more about that as we go along.
What worries us is that the Department of Social Security says that it has plans to save £400 million by the switch to ACT. As we understand it, that sort of saving would not be achieved unless the switch were very nearly total.
Not for the first time, I express misgivings about the effect of the Change programme—the 25 per cent reduction in administrative costs—on the working of the Department of Social Security. At the time, Mr Peter Lilley expressed the view that that change filled him with despair. I understand very well why Mr Lilley said that, and I think that this may perhaps be an example of the despair he then felt.
The importance of the Post Office in any small community is immense. Over the Easter Recess I had some opportunity to listen to voters. I found that the issue of the Post Office, along with the issue of rural buses, ranked on a level with pensions among those issues which caused concern among the electorate. This is something to which, in a democracy, we really must listen.
I am reminded of a story dating back to the golden age when Hugh Fraser was owner of Harrods. He was visiting a remote Scottish village and was taken to the village shop. The woman who ran the village shop

575
asked him what he did and he said, "I've got a shop too". She started asking him questions about its size and the range of goods it stocked, and her face started to drop like a stone—until it suddenly lit up and she said, "Och, but yell no have the Post Office"! That is a real example of what the Post Office actually means in a small village.
For a great many people on benefit banks are not a particularly adequate alternative. The services of banks are not really designed for people who are on benefit. I remember one story which came to me from CAB sources, which puts this in a nutshell. A woman on income support had got used to running down her bank account to the last few pence at the end of each week. They miscalculated her account, calculated that she had gone into overdraft and imposed a £10 overdraft charge on her. She wrote and protested at this. They admitted the error, but then charged her £10 for writing her the letter in which they admitted that they were in error. She therefore went back into overdraft and, having no overdraft facility, was unable to buy any food.
That is why banks are not designed to be suited to people on benefit. Any community banking facility that may be laid on in any future arrangement for the benefit of people who want to have a bank account would have to take account of such needs.
I understand that the Government are now considering new schemes and new possibilities, but we do not yet know what those are. An amendment which has been tabled to the Postal Services Bill, on which the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, may have more to say, states that the Secretary of State "may" provide a scheme which will provide alternative facilities. I reread that amendment about five minutes ago, probably for the 10th time. I cannot say that it is extremely clear to me exactly what the Secretary of State may do. He may do something in particular; he may do it very well or he may not. I remind the Minister of the debate we had a few moments ago about the importance of doing something while the Bill is in this House. When there is not a Bill before us, we do not have any purchasing power.
It may be that this scheme will be perfectly adequate. I hope so. The Minister deserves the benefit of a favourable interpretation on that. On the other hand, I am sure that she understands the importance of the principle of belt and braces, although I cannot follow the noble Lord, Lord Rix, and claim that this is something of which I have some professional knowledge!
9.15 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Not only the noble Earl, but most women do not have such professional knowledge either.
Earl Russell: I thank the Minister for that point, though it is now rather more normal than it was for women to attend this House in trousers, and I am glad to see it!
576
However, as regards the main principle, we should like an assurance that we have some purchase on the situation, just in case the scheme does not work out as we would wish. Ministers are at the mercy of events at all times. So an intention that is perfectly good now might not prove to be so good after the next economic blizzard—indeed, one day, this year, next year or sometime in the future, there will inevitably be another. Therefore, we need this security. We can achieve that either through the amendment tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, or through this one. We may even achieve it through some composite amendment upon which we may agree in the future. But, one way or another, we need the purchase. I beg to move.
Lord Higgins: It has been a constant theme of our debates that matters which normally fall under the social security remit are being taken over by the Treasury. This is yet another example of the Treasury carrying through its policy regardless of the social consequences.
There are two amendments in this group. Amendment No. 180, which the noble Earl just moved, suggests that,
"the regulations may not require automated credit transfer to he the only manner of paying a benefit".
If that were to be accepted, the noble Earl suggested that primary legislation would be needed to alter the situation.
Our amendment, Amendment No. 181, is rather different and tackles the problem from the other end. It says that the system will be all right,
"providing that the regulations ensure that payments may continue to be made by the same method as that employed on the date of commencement of this Act".
In the light of this debate, we may, as the noble Earl suggested, wish to get together and decide what the best format would be. But that will depend on the Minister's forthcoming answer in which she may persuade us that this is no longer necessary.
In our view, the decision by the Government to move to a system of automated credit transfer threatens the future of at least one-third of sub-post offices; indeed, the number may be something over 18,000. A substantial part of the revenue of post offices derives from the income that they receive as a result of dispersing various social security benefits. The previous government made a suggestion for overcoming this problem in a form that would—it was hoped—help to maintain the sub-post office network while, at the same time, facilitating the payment of cash through the post office. The Government abandoned that so-called "Horizon Project", but we remain totally unclear and puzzled about what they propose to put in its place.
I have some sympathy with the views expressed by the noble Earl on the question of banking services. He suggested that they are not suitable for many people on social security benefits. In some ways, banks are not suitable for people generally. Some years ago when I was chair of the Treasury Select Committee, we carried

577
out an investigation into bank charges. The then chairman of Barclays Bank appeared before us and managed to sustain a defence of his position for some two hours. However, right at the end of the process, we asked him how he made sure that he received payment of those excessive charges. He replied, "We've already got the money". That was rather typical of the attitude that was prevalent at that time and which, to some extent, is still prevalent now.
In reality, many people who receive social security benefits are not well suited to arranging their financial affairs through banks which, as the noble Earl rightly pointed out, may well impose quite heavy charges on them. Indeed, in the context of someone on income support, that may prove to be quite a substantial amount of the income that he or she receives from the Government. Some people are not used to working through the banking system and have a real preference for receiving their money in cash; for example, from the "order book", which is frequently used. However, as has already been pointed out, the proposed new system will also have an effect on the whole structure of post offices and the important role that they play in the communities which they serve. Indeed, my noble friend Lady Byford may wish to say more on the subject.
We seek a response on two matters this evening. There have been a number of exchanges at Question Time and on other occasions across the Floor of the Chamber with regard to the Government's position on these matters. First, it appears to be difficult to get across to the Minister people's worries on this issue. People rightly want to receive their benefits in cash. The Minister has said that they will continue to receive them in cash. However, she has not at any time explained how this is to be achieved. We are ever hopeful that she will tell us this. The Government have considered this matter for a long time. It is no good just saying that benefits will be paid in cash without saying how that will be achieved.
Secondly, I understand that post offices are under a legal obligation to fulfil their universal service obligation with regard to certain services, for example, registered post and the delivery of parcels weighing up to 20 kilos. We are not at all clear whether post offices will fulfil that universal service obligation if their number is significantly diminished. It clearly is not just a question of fulfilling that universal service obligation at one point. Post offices must fulfil that obligation over a reasonable geographical spread of the country.
I also seek clarification on my next point. I understand that in responding to a recent debate in another place the Minister concerned seemed to indicate that there was to be some form of compensation or alternative payment to post offices to enable them to continue to survive. Generally speaking, post offices comprise small businesses and the people who run them may well have invested their life savings in them. However, if the Government's present proposals are implemented, and these amendments, or something like them, are not accepted, people who run post offices may no longer
578
be able to continue in business and may suffer considerably as a result. These are not unimportant issues. We hope at the very least for some clarification from the Minister this evening. We hope to be given a helpful response.
Baroness Gale: The noble Earl, Lord Russell, remarked on the immense importance of small post offices. I think we all agree with that. However, the Government regard as outdated the present method of payment of benefits by order books and giro cheques. We must consider new and more secure methods of payment. The payment of benefits by automated credit transfer will not begin until 2003. Some fears have been expressed with regard to the Government's proposals. Some people fear that they will be unable to collect their pensions or benefits from the post office. However, this fear has been addressed. The Government will ensure that people who wish to do so can collect their benefits and pensions at the post office and can receive payment in cash. Another fear is that rural post offices—
Lord Higgins: Has the noble Baroness any idea how that will be done?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am happy to try to spell that out to the noble Lord in due course. I do not think that it is reasonable to ask someone other than myself that question at this point.
Lord Higgins: I do not understand why that is the case. The noble Baroness, Lady Gale, has asserted that payment will be made in cash. I asked the simple question: how will that be done? I think that is a reasonable question to ask someone who is asserting that all will be well.
Baroness Gale: I repeat that those who wish to receive their benefits in cash will receive them in cash. I am sure that my noble friend the Minister will explain how that will be done.
Another fear expressed is that rural post offices—and also post offices in isolated areas—will close as a result of the new measures. However, that will not occur because post offices will still act as access points for the collection of pensions and benefits. The benefits of the new method far outweigh any disadvantages. For example, ACT will clearly assist in the elimination of fraud. The flexibility as regards the collection of payment will also assist people. Many thousands of people already use this method. The Government's proposals will bring about a more efficient and secure system of payment and, by the time that it is fully implemented, it will be seen as a sensible measure. I believe that these are practical proposals fit for the 21st century.
9.30 p.m.
Baroness Byford: I thank the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and my noble friend Lord Higgins for their amendments. The Committee will be relieved to hear

579
that I shall not go through all of the arguments that I put forward earlier in Committee. However, there are some issues that I wish to raise at this stage.
Both noble Lords are right to refer to the role that post offices will play in the future payment of benefits. Although the Minister was nodding her head and saying, "Yes, they will be paid in cash"—which I accept—that is not part of my argument. However, I shall return to that issue later.
I, too, acknowledge that although the problem concerns predominantly rural areas, some urban areas are also feeling the squeeze, if you like, as far as concerns payment of benefits.
Earlier in Committee, I referred to the fact that some 2 million people are "unbanked". The Minister acknowledged that. We also discussed the kind of system there will be and my noble friend asked how people will receive their money. I hope that the Minister will enlarge upon that matter when she responds. I have offered her little morsels in an attempt to extract from her how payments wig be made, and painfully, painfully, painfully, we seem to be getting there.
In fairness to the Committee, I should say that, following our last debate, the Minister wrote to me on 16th May. In her letter she stated that,
"The precise means of doing so will be a matter for the Post Office and the banks. However, we expect available options to include withdrawing money through a bankcard"—
which is something my noble friends may not know—
"being swiped through the new 'Horizon' computer terminals currently being installed in post offices".
If that is so, my first question to the Minister is how does that differ from the system proposed by the previous government. I suggested that payments would be made by means of a Smart card, but the Minister denied that. However, her letter states that there may well be a "bankcard". Call it what you will; it seems to me that we are going back to the previous government's proposals and starting all over again. Perhaps the Minister will bring me up to date when she responds.
There are, of course, cost implications involved in such a system. It was suggested originally that the system proposed by the previous government was too expensive. This Government wish to do away with books and giros and so on, but obviously people will need some form of identification. We perhaps reached this stage previously in Committee. Members of the Committee were asking how people would identify themselves in order to receive cash, a facility that the Minister said would still be available. Perhaps the Minister will be able to clear up that query when she responds; I am still a little unclear. There will obviously be cash implications if a bank card is going to be used and, if books are no longer required, it may make a difference to one or two of the amendments which have been tabled today. We may wish to consider that matter and come back to it at the next stage.
580
Perhaps I may move on to one or two other matters. We discussed social banking provision for some of the 2 million "unbanked" people. Several questions arise from that. First, what do the Government think will be the cost? Secondly, who will bear that cost; who will pay it? Will it be the Government, the Post Office or the banks—or all of them? Certainly it was mentioned in the correspondence that I have received recently from Barclays Bank that one of its people is arranging a presentation, and that in that presentation he quite rightly refers to the cost of such provision, saying:
"The potential cost to banks of opening and operating these accounts is an interesting question. We certainly do not expect to make any profit from them, indeed a loss is a real possibility".
It was agreed that an average balance of around £1,000 a year is needed to make a bank account profitable. Clearly, we would not expect to see that level of credit balance maintained by the kind of people about whom we are talking. He acknowledged that there is a cost, and someone must bear that cost somewhere along the line. Perhaps the Minister will touch on that point when she comes to reply.
Since my previous contribution on the first day of Committee I have had a letter from the Alliance & Leicester stating that it had noted my mention of increased or compulsory ACT. The Alliance & Leicester has been lobbying the Government very hard against that as it greatly impacts on Giro and the POCL's commercial objectives. As two of the major banks have expressed concern on this matter, I hope that the Minister will be able to say that something has happened since the previous debate.
Other noble Lords have referred to the fact that people need to have access to cash. I have been looking at the Select Committee report on the rural White Paper, although I do not expect the Minister to have seen it or indeed to have studied it. On page 18 of the report the committee referred to benefit payments through post offices. The committee stated:
"The Government must move rapidly to reconfirm that individuals will continue to receive benefit payments through the Post Office and that any loss of income to the Post Office brought about by the changing pattern of payments should be offset by additional opportunities to gain custom".
Indeed, during our exchanges two weeks ago, the noble Baroness stated the other advantages. I accept that. The committee went on to state:
"We fear that if they do not do so there will be a loss of sonic rural post offices".
This is a matter of great concern. It is not just my concern. It is a concern to those who will draw the payments and to the banks and others involved. It is an important issue and one where there is uncertainty. I should like greater clarification from the Minister when she comes to reply.
Perhaps I may pose some questions to the Minister in summing up my thoughts on the issue. If recipients do not wish to have their payments made through banks, how will they be paid? Will they be made through the card, or do the Government have other options in mind? If recipients have such an account and then run up an overdraft, what will the position be? Will the Government cover them? Is the social

581
bank to be limited to the payment of welfare benefits, or will recipients be allowed to develop their bank account into a normal bank account, whereby some will be in credit and others will have overdrafts? For those who want to claim in that way and may not want to receive payment through the post office, how will those who do not qualify to be banked get over the whole question of being banked?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I do not understand that last question. The noble Baroness asked how, if people are not qualified to be banked, they will be banked. Who would not qualify to be banked, apart possibly from a bankrupt?
Baroness Byford: I thank the noble Baroness. I know that several people have applied to banks to be banked and the bank will not bank them. Therefore, they are not clients because the bank will not take them on as a risk. With the new measures put forward by the noble Baroness, that will not be a difficulty. Currently, banks do not take on everyone who applies for banking facilities. That is what I was trying to convey, perhaps not very well for which I apologise. How will the Government deal with the whole question of homeless people who apply for banking facilities or come to the social bank?
My next point touches on what my noble friend said earlier. At the moment, post offices handle all of these welfare benefits. Is it the intention of the Government that sub-post offices, part-time post offices, Crown post offices or even newly created post offices will deal with them? Will there be universal coverage? Again, I should like some clarification on that point. Lastly, will the Government forbid banks to charge at any time for the provision of basic banking services? Obviously, when banks offer services, most people are charged for that work.
These are important practical issues. I accept the Minister's assurance that claimants will be able to draw cash from post offices. However, for Members on these Benches and, indeed, on the Liberal Democrat Benches, questions still remain as regards the nitty-gritty of the arrangements. When I raised this matter two weeks ago, I was told that the Government were waiting for the PIU report. It was due to be published at Easter. That date slipped to May and I understand that publication may now be delayed until June or even September. Given the issues raised in our earlier debates on war pensions, I feel that this is another area where we wish to be absolutely clear on the detail before the Bill leaves this House.
Some noble Lords may wonder why I worry so much about these basic issues. I shall repeat what I said two weeks ago on the matter. When families get into difficulties, in particular when they break down, mothers left caring for children feel more secure when they know that they can go to the post office to claim their cash benefits. That is extremely important to them. Although it has been suggested that a form of social banking will be established for the whole family, some mothers will be hesitant about arrangements
582
where the facilities for collecting cash for themselves and their children are moved to a joint bank account. It may be that at that moment their partners are people whom they do not and cannot trust in that respect. I urge the Government to consider this carefully.
I appreciate that the arrangements are not due to come into effect until 2003. However, as my noble friend mentioned earlier, post offices are small businesses and those who manage them need to plan for the future. I do not doubt the Minister's sincerity in her assurances that universal coverage will be achieved, but it is important to be clear on what will be put in place for small post offices during the intervening period. It has been suggested that subsidies will be paid. The Minister has already mentioned that provision. However, when I had discussions with a group of sub-postmasters two weeks ago, it was clear that, although they were pleased to learn that a subsidy would be paid, they knew that that would only be a short-term, stop-gap measure. Can the Minister enlarge on future plans for small post offices?
Sub-postmasters have also expressed concern about the management of the new systems by local authorities. Local authorities vary and may well interpret the regulations differently. What criteria will be set out to determine which post offices should receive the subsidy?
This is a complicated area and I apologise to the Minister for having put so many questions to her. However, she has kindly moved a step further forward since this matter was last raised by saying that the Government are considering the issue of a bank card. Perhaps she can take us even further tonight.
Baroness Pitkeathley: We are debating two issues here: first, that of benefits being paid by automatic credit transfer; and, secondly, the future of rural post offices. The two are not necessarily inter-related, although, as the former chair of a rural community council and the current president of one, I am fully aware of the problems faced by rural post offices.
As regards the issue of ACT, we need to understand how matters are progressing in this area. I believe that every year half a million people are choosing to transfer to this method of receiving benefit payments. Although many of the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, as regards access and so forth are without doubt true, so, too, is the issue of fraud and the cost of making giro payments. I seem to remember that half my working life as a social worker was spent chasing the giro that had not been paid, the giro that had been sent to the wrong address, or the payment book that had gone astray, with equal distress for the kind of families referred to by the noble Baroness. As I understand it, no one is to be forced to have his or her benefits paid by automatic credit transfer. I remember being in the Gallery of the House of Commons and hearing the Prime Minister say that this would not happen and that people could continue to be paid weekly or monthly as they wished.
As to the question of post offices—to which I feel a strong commitment, given my connection with the rural community council—I do not think that we

583
should be too circumscribed in our view of the future of rural post offices or post offices in isolated areas. Given the opportunities that are opened up by electronic links, post offices can be the source of information for communities through e-mail, the Internet and so on. We should be unwise to take too limited a view; namely, that a change in the method of benefit payment would automatically have the effect on post offices that some noble Lords have suggested. We should think of the other opportunities that are being opened up to them at the same time.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Hylton: The noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, has opened up a fascinating prospect for existing post offices and sub-post offices in the electronic age. That will take some time to become effective and to present a real source of income for those who are presently running those post offices. I take the view that we cannot afford to lose any more sub-post offices, certainly not in rural areas, and to some extent in urban areas. That is why I support the general principles of both amendments. I strongly agree with many of the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford.
In the part of Somerset where I live, we have already lost a large number of post offices. Those that continue are often hanging on by the skin of their teeth and working on the narrowest of margins. The sub-postmaster's salary is often critically important.
Perhaps I may comment on the social uses of post offices, which go beyond their immediate functions and utility for the payment and receipt of benefits, for example. In my village we have a church and a pub, but we have no post office. The post office used to perform functions which neither the pub nor the church can effectively perform, because post offices are more accessible. You do not have to belong to the drinking set, or the religious set. They offer much more neutral ground and are valuable for that reason.
I understand that it is already possible, where towns qualify for the single regeneration budget, for credit unions to be promoted under that heading. Besides being valuable in their own right, they could spill over from a given town to its neighbouring villages. That could also provide a form of work in which those who are currently sub-postmasters could be effectively and usefully engaged. I hope that in this critical interim period, when we are trying to preserve the post offices that we have, the possibility of working credit unions into the whole scheme of things will be examined carefully by the Government.
The Lord Bishop of Hereford: I rise briefly to express strong support for the principle which I believe lies behind both amendments. However, I am not sure that the wording of either amendment meets the problem. The amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, opens up the possibility that payment may not be by automated credit transfer, but it is not beyond the Government's ingenuity to think of another method of payment that is equally unacceptable. Simply to outlaw that particular means of payment is not wholly
584
safe. If we are not talking about "belt and braces", perhaps the noble Baroness prefers "elastic and safety pins".
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I cannot believe that the right reverend Prelate teases us at this late hour.
The Lord Bishop of Hereford: I apologise. The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, is also a hostage to fortune since we do not know when the legislation will come into force. Therefore, there is something amiss with both amendments. The principle behind them which has been eloquently expressed is that we must have cash payments not only for the benefit and peace of mind of people of very modest means, who depend on post offices and are used to operating a totally cash economy, but also for the benefit of the post offices themselves. The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, pointed out the critical importance of a post office in rural areas. If cash payments are not made the money is not recycled over the counter in the payment of council tax, water rates, television licences, telephone and electricity bills, the stamps on which people depend, and so on. People receive their cash in benefits and pay it back over the counter which is business for the post office. It is also business for the shop which is frequently integrated with the small post office. There is a critical economic mass which depends on those cash payments. We should like to receive an assurance from the Minister that cash payments will continue beyond 2003 indefinitely for those who want them. If we must have a card, can it please be referred to as a post office ca rd without the word "bank"?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The last suggestion of the right reverend Prelate is excellent and I commend it to my colleagues. Post offices play a vital role in the community, especially in rural areas where there may be few other shops or services. As the right reverend Prelate said, payments in cash may be essential in order to keep afloat whatever other services are available. They are also particularly important for elderly people.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, interlocked the debate with credit unions and made some interesting comments. My understanding is that in the UK about 500,000 people are involved in credit unions. That represents about 1 per cent of the population, compared with about 30 per cent in the United States. Credit unions tend to be based on the workplace; that is, people in work in a reasonably tight area. Therefore, perhaps they have not translated as well into rural areas. The noble Lord did not mention the alternative of LETS—labour or time exchange schemes—which may perhaps be more appropriate in rural settings.
To return to post offices, my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley made the point very well that the post office has been in decline for years. Over the past 25 years some 20 per cent of the network has closed. Each year some 500,000 people, either through a death or coming new to the service, choose not to be paid

585
through the post office but by ACT; in other words, each year that number of people decide not to use the post office. One thinks of the two major universal benefits which reach almost all families, retirement pension and child benefit. Just under 50 per cent of new pensioners, who are obviously the backbone of the post office network, choose to be paid by ACT, and 54 per cent of new child benefit applicants receive their payments through ACT. That is not surprising because 93 per cent of those who are retired have either a current or savings bank account, as do 98 per cent of the employed, 84 per cent of the unemployed, 87 per cent of those who receive child benefit, and so on. I could continue the statistics.
This means that benefit and pension recipients already vote with their feet. Even if the DSS did nothing whatever the post office network would continue to shrink, and probably at an accelerating rate, across the country. That is why I hope the Committee will accept that this problem is independent of the actions of the DSS. It is important that whatever the DSS does in no way accelerates that decline but that post offices, it is hoped, see this as an opportunity which will keep them afloat for the decades to come. That is why we are taking steps to protect the network. For example, we are investing nearly £500 million in the Horizon system which will computerise post offices.
The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, asked whether it will be universal. Yes, every post office will be online over the next year even if they are not on electricity. We shall do more if necessary. For example, we have added a new clause to the Postal Services Bill in another place which would allow a subsidy to be paid should it be needed. That is the point of the word "may". It is an important move showing the good will of the Government towards post offices and a recognition by Government of the importance of post offices to rural and deprived inner-urban communities.
However, I should like to argue strongly—the more I engage in debate on the issue, the more persuaded I am of the Government's position on this—that we shall not do the Post Office or the taxpayers any favour by continuing with order books and giro books. They are outdated, expensive to administer and open to fraud. We have to find a new way forward. The Government will do what they can. But the Post Office also must take responsibility and help to find new business. It must stop treating this as a threat and start treating it as an opportunity. One such opportunity is the universal bank which I shall describe more fully in a moment.
In addition, post offices may well have, I hope, a role in delivering government services by becoming a government gateway for all central and local government services through a single point of access. There are many other opportunities for diversification.
Amendments Nos. 180 and 181 are designed to retain the current paper-based method of payment. It would mean that people would be able to continue to
586
opt for payment by giro book and order book from 2003 rather than have benefit paid directly into their bank or building society account.
We have announced that payment by automated credit transfer will be the norm for paying benefits from 2003. The transfer to ACT will be completed by 2005. However, those who wish to continue to collect their cash at post offices will still be able to do so before and after the change in 2003. We should remember why we are making the change. The current system belongs to the days of ration books. If we were starting again today no one would invent a system where one has a book of paper which can be taken by anyone, changed by anyone, used at only one outlet—it cannot be used if an individual goes away on holiday, or stays with a daughter 50 miles away—and which can be easily mislaid and damaged. If we sought to change from a payment card of some kind—I shall describe it later—to a paper-based system which anyone can manipulate fraudulently, where one carries an order book and queues for an hour or 40 minutes waiting for it to be stamped—an order book which anyone can use and which can easily be lost and so on—and where one has to take out the entire amount whether or not one wants it, the Committee would be in uproar. No one would now invent that system as a method of paying benefit. Its days are long past. The issue should have been tackled a long time ago.
Peter Lilley stated on 12th April:
"I recognised that the process of distributing benefits by order books was one of the most costly, inefficient and fraud-prone ways of delivering money".—[Official Report, Commons. 12/4/00: col. 62WH]
Across the world, the equivalent of the DSS is using ACT to deliver its benefits. France, Germany, Italy, Spain and other countries are either required or heavily encouraged to use that form of payment. It is safe, convenient and efficient. It uses tried and tested technology already chosen by over a third of recipients of benefits to access their accounts. It reduces the cost. We should not be embarrassed by that. Every ACT transactions costs only a penny compared with the overall costs of 54p every time an order book foil is presented and £1.36 per giro cashed. One cannot argue that we should continue to spend £1.36 as taxpayers rather than 1p a transaction in order to keep small businesses afloat. There may be need—we have the powers under the Bill—for a targeted subsidy, but not a generalised subsidy through an expensive method of payment such as we currently have. It also makes the system more secure against fraud.
Lord Higgins: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for allowing me to intervene. The noble Baroness refers to a targeted subsidy. It is implicit in that remark that the Government have in mind a certain number and spread of post offices; otherwise I do not see how they will target the subsidy.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: By "targeted subsidy" I meant that if, for example, one has an expensive method of paying benefit, all post offices, postmasters and sub-postmasters receive some of that through

587
form of income. They may need it or they may not in order to keep the system afloat. I repeat that the powers taken in the Postal Services Bill indicate that we recognise that some post offices may need particular help—and in that case, the Government and POCL will reflect on that—as opposed to the generalised help of paying through a costly, inefficient and fraud-prone system. I meant nothing more specific than that.
At this stage, I do not have information to show whether the subsidy may be necessary and if so what its size or criteria may be. Such issues will be developed in subsequent discussions with POCL if and when the need arises.
10 p.m.
Lord Higgins: Surely, when the noble Baroness uses the word "necessary" it is implicit that the Government have a view on whether they want to keep a certain number of post offices in business. I understand that that will be the object of the subsidy.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: No Government can guarantee that any form of subsidy will keep all the existing network afloat. After all, each year we have seen the closure of 200 post offices. As the noble Lord will know, half of all postmasters and postmistresses are over the age of 50. Often, it is a late-stage career run alongside a pension. If when that person decides to take full retirement no one is willing to take over the post office, or if it has been cross-subsidised from the person's pension from a previous job, the post office may fold. It is not necessarily a responsibility of government to equate that.
The Government have made it clear that they want to see the post office network protected and, in terms of services, enhanced. I do not want to be drawn into a discussion on where, how much, if, when, to whom, what numbers and by what criteria any possible subsidy may go. I was trying to assure the noble Lord and the Committee that, by taking the power in the Postal Services Bill, the Government have gone a long way towards meeting some of the real, understandable concerns that have been represented to us by sub-postmasters.
A second advantage of the new system will be to tackle fraud. We lose more than £100 million a year from the instrument of payment fraud. Giro and order books are lost, stolen and manipulated. In 1998–99, there were some 800 million encashments by order books and giro. That is the size of the activity and it is easy to see how it can lend itself to simple forms of expensive fraud.
The move to ACT also helps to promote financial inclusion. That was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady 13yford. Having a bank or building society gives people access to a wider range of services, such as direct debit facilities, which make it cheaper to pay bills. For example, you can save up to £50 a year on utility bills. It also gives people access to mainstream borrowing facilities.
588
I ask your Lordships to take the point seriously. Encouraging people to remain with a ration-book system for accessing their benefits means that they can access almost no other financial services. If you want to write a cheque to pay a bill, you have to use a friend to do so. If you want to cash a cheque that has been sent to you, you have to go to a cheque changing shop and perhaps lose 5 or 10 per cent of its value. If you want to buy an item—perhaps to replace a bed or cooker—by instalments, you cannot use direct debit. You may instead have to buy through a catalogue at APR rates of 20 per cent or more. That is to say nothing about having to have recourse to pawn shops and money lenders.
I have seen all the research on this subject—there have been about four pieces in the past 18 months—and it shows a huge unmet need for secure, inexpensive and accessible financial services for those who are currently "unbanked", to use the noble Baroness's phrase, from paying bills to obtaining insurance.
On numerous occasions, we have made it clear that people will still be able to collect their cash at post offices both before and after the move to paying benefits by ACT in 2003. Three possible routes will enable people to collect their cash and they are not mutually exclusive. The first is network banking. Horizon, the programme to install online computer facilities, will be completed by the end of the year. It will offer potential for the Post Office to extend its arrangements with the high street banks. It has a solid foundation on which to build, only 5 per cent of rural parishes currently have a bank branch. Most major banks have between 1,500 and 2,000 outlets compared with the Post Office which has more than 18,000 outlets and in 50 per cent of parishes. The Post Office already has arrangements with Girobank, the Alliance & Leicester, Lloyds TSB, Barclays and the Co-operative Bank—and I believe that it is also talking to NatWest at the moment—to provide the banking facilities for them as their agent. That has enabled network banking, with all its associated services, to return to rural areas where the banks disappeared years ago.
The second mode of payment is cash machines. The Post Office has announced that some 3,000 cash machines will be installed by the end of 2001, many of them in rural post offices. In many rural areas, residents must now travel miles to the nearest town in order to draw cash and they spend it there, rather than, as the right reverend Prelate said, in the local village.
Thirdly, the development of a universal bank, which I mentioned earlier, could be available to all the 18,000 post offices currently in the network. Therefore, that is far more generous in its scope than the current banking facilities offered by the main clearing banks in this country.
The vast majority of benefit recipients—as I said earlier, over 80 per cent—already have access to a bank method and increasingly they are choosing that method for payment to be made. Equally, the development of a universal bank through the Post Office could offer an alternative. Effectively, it would

589
be a post office bank for those who are apprehensive about using more traditional banking facilities. However, we recognise that some people will simply be unable to use ACT. For those people we are considering what alternative, simple, electronic money transition systems, which could also be accessed at post offices, may be commercially available.
The primary method that we are considering is payment through a universal bank by virtue, as the noble Baroness described, of the equivalent of what she and I might call a Switch card. A Switch-type card or a banking card could be used to access money at the Post Office's universal bank and, what is more, unlike now, to have access to it at any post office in the country. One could draw as much or as little of one's benefit as one wished, unlike the current order book system under which one must draw all the benefit. It would be infinitely more convenient, infinitely cheaper and infinitely safer.
The noble Baroness asked what would be the difference between a bank card and the original smartcard that was envisaged. As I understand it, the original smartcard had to be abandoned because it drew on expensive new technology, was three years behind contract and was many millions of pounds over budget. However, I believe that the proposals for it would have encoded, so to speak, the money available on to the card. It would have drawn money from the card rather than the card being used to gain access to a Post Office account.
How would such a card be acquired? As I said, we would expect people to use a bank card. If they did not already have one, they would obtain one by using exactly the same method of identification as they do now when establishing their entitlement to benefit in the first place. They might use information from a driving licence, a local authority red card, a passport, a birth certificate, a wage slip or trade union membership card; in other words, under these proposals the type of identification that sets up their benefit entitlement in the first place and delivers them the order book should be sufficient to establish their identity in order to acquire a bank card which will then allow them to access money from their account held by the Post Office into which their benefit is paid.
I hope that that answers the noble Lord's questions. As I say, many people will use the 3,000 machines; others will use their own banks through the Post Office's proxy; and others, I believe, will have access to or will use the universal bank.
I was asked about bank charges. We recognise that people expect to be able to withdraw their money without incurring charges for doing so. We are discussing that issue with the banks in order to ensure that that happens. I do not believe that questions were raised about payment patterns. Therefore, I shall leave that matter today.
Some Members of the Committee have been concerned about security; for example, when money has to be paid by a third party because someone is frail or disabled. As now, people can make power of
590
attorney arrangements, they can arrange a third-party mandate with a bank, or they can provide another person with a signed letter of authority. That is not very different from cashing an order book now.
I do not deny that a number of details must be sorted out, but the move to ACT is still three years away. One reason that we have taken time on this matter is to ensure that all the necessary arrangements are in place and comfortable.
I was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, about the universal service obligation. As I understand it, the universal service obligation comprises daily mail deliveries to every postal address, a uniform tariff rate for inland mail and a nationwide network of post offices, but this has not been specified in terms of numbers. The Government will establish access criteria for post office counter services in the light of the PIU report and consultations with interested parties.
It has been accepted in the other place that ACT is an appropriate way forward or, as an alternative, a universal bank with access through a bank card or the equivalent to a switch type card, provided we can ensure that people can obtain cash as and when they need it in the way most convenient to them. I repeat that, every year, we are losing 500,000 people to ACT methods. ACT methods have been running since 1983. I am not aware that they have generated any problems. Post offices have traditionally relied on the elderly and so on for paper book, ration book payments. That generation is leaving us and the new generation coming through is preferring to use ACT. We have to move to an efficient and secure method of paying benefits. It is extraordinary that we would conceive that people would wish to continue using order books and Giros.
Part of the difficulty is that people who are not banked do not know what they lose out by not being banked. One of our responsibilities is to encourage post offices to take advantage of the opportunities that this will provide to meet their concerns.
I hope that I have answered all the questions that have been raised. If the noble Baroness wishes to intervene and press me on any questions that I have not answered, I am very happy to do so. This is not a party political issue, it is something that we are all concerned about. I have spoken with my honourable friend in the other place, Mr Alan Johnson, the Minister responsible for this provision in the Postal Services Bill. I have provisionally set up an all party peers' meeting during the afternoon of Thursday 7th June, which is in the week when we return after the Whitsun Recess, at which there can be a full and frank discussion before Report stage. He will be in a position to give far better reassurances to Members of your Lordships' House about issues associated with the post office network as we see it in the future. At that meeting—which I shall of course put on the all-party Whips and circularise to Members—Members of your Lordships' House will be able to press the Minister himself in far greater detail than I can possibly answer tonight.

591
He will also give information about the PIU report. People will be paid in cash—they will have a very simple method of acquiring that cash if they do not go through ACT, existing banks or machines—through a universal bank. I hope that, as a result of what I have said, your Lordships will agree to withdraw your amendments tonight and seek to press my honourable friend at the meeting on the details. Of course, if, as a result of that, your Lordships are still not satisfied with the replies the Government are seeking to offer, then your Lordships will, I am sure, come back at Report and Third Reading. In the light of that, I hope your Lordships will feel able to withdraw their amendments.
Baroness Byford: I do thank the Minister for the detail in which she has gone into matters. I take the latter point first. She has suggested that we might meet with Alan Johnson, which is very kind of her, but the afternoon she has chosen is actually the afternoon of the Committee stage of the Postal Services Bill in this House. If it is, could we please have another date, because we cannot be in two places at once?
The Minister said that, obviously over the years money has been lost through the use of Giro and books. For those using ACT, if I remember correctly—and I do not have my Hansard with me—I thought the response her honourable friend Mr Alan Johnson gave was that his understanding was that there were no direct fraud losses from ACT. What did he mean by the use of the word "direct"? Does that suggest that there have never been any frauds using the other payment method or is it just that they cannot be identified?
Secondly, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her explanation in relation to the use of the smart card or the Post Office card. If a third person is collecting for someone else, that would need to be very carefully supervised because I suspect that that is sometimes the point at which fraud creeps into the system.
I turn to the question of costs, which may be slightly outside the noble Baroness's brief. Who will meet the costs in relation to those people who are unbanked? Will it be the Government, the Post Office or the bank? I have not had an answer to that.
The same relates to the use of the switch card. The Minister said that using the old-fashioned books is an expensive method. But there will be a cost arising from the new cards. Will the Minister give us an indication of those costs? If that is not possible, we shall have to carry forward that matter to the next stage of the Bill. But those are practical issues which the noble Baroness has not yet answered.
10.15 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Perhaps I may try to help the noble Baroness. On the point of "direct" fraud, what I assume that my honourable friend was saying, in terms of ACT, was that the process—that is, the method of payment—had not produced fraud. That does not mean that people may not have inappropriately acquired benefits into their accounts
592
through fraud but that has not been done through the process; that is, the direct payment method has not itself engendered fraud. That is the difference. There may be fraud which is not through the payment method but by manipulation of the benefit system; for example, people claiming benefit while working.
Secondly, the noble Baroness asked me whether it is possible to run up an overdraft and I did not reply to that question. Unless the proposals change, no cheque book is envisaged. Therefore, it will be impossible, under the universal bank method, to run up an overdraft in that way.
The noble Baroness asked me how people who are not banked at present will be so in the future. At present, such people are not receiving benefit in the form of the Post Office acting as an agency for other banks. In future, they will receive their benefits through the universal bank and they will have a card. The only difference for those people is that they will have a Post Office card rather than a book. In that sense, they will be in the same position as they are now but there will be a more secure and convenient method of payment.
Baroness Byford: I accept what the Minister says but the provision of that card will cost money. We are getting rid of a book, which costs money, but it is to be replaced by a card, which also costs money.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Clearly, the DSS has paid and will continue to pay for the costs of the payment of benefit. Some of those negotiations will be part of what the DSS and POCL will be discussing over the next year or so. But we are determined that nobody who receives payment through the universal bank method will receive a reduced benefit in the form of a bank charge by virtue of that method of payment. That seems to me to be the important issue.
Homeless people too will have better protection than they have at present. The identification of people who have information in evidence to set up their entitlement to benefit, including homeless people who are eligible for income support or whatever, will serve them to acquire a bank card, a Post Office card, on which to draw their benefit. The advantage for them is that they can use their card at a range of post offices and will not just be tied to one. I hope that I have now answered the noble Baroness's questions.
Baroness Byford: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her extremely good attempt at doing so this evening. I shall read Hansard with interest but I thank her for her answers.
Lord Higgins: The first point that one needs to make is that the report of the Trade and Industry Committee, published last September, seems to be rather at variance with what the Minister said this evening. In its report it said that the image presented of a flood of new entrants opting for ACT is exaggerated. Most pensioners are not, in fact, opting for ACT.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I was very clear in saying that it was the new pensioners. Something like

593
50 per cent of new pensioners and something like 54 per cent of new people coming into child benefit use ACT. I tried to suggest there was a generational cohort effect. I also pointed out that 93 per cent of all pensioners have either a current or a savings bank account.
Lord Higgins: If the noble Baroness had allowed me to finish, it would have been apparent that what she has just said is also inconsistent with what the report said, which was that fewer than one in 10 income support recipients elect for ACT and that fewer than one in three of new benefit recipients opt for ACT. The fact remains that for a variety of reasons most new benefit recipients still opt for cash in hand from a post office and that choice must be respected. Clearly, there is some dispute about the figures.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am talking about child benefit and pensions as being the two universal benefits. Indeed, it is likely that many people, particularly young people receiving JSA or, in some cases, loan parents on IS, do not use that method and disproportionately use the post office payment method.
One, not exactly shocking, but slightly surprising fact that may be more familiar to the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, is the number of people who have a bank account when they are employed but when they become unemployed choose not to use it. One can speculate on the reasons for that. Instead they prefer to be paid cash in hand through order books. One may wonder about that.
Certainly, the statistics that I gave the noble Lord were about retirement benefit, new entrants to retirement pension and new entrants to child benefit. Taking the current state across all the population, that is partly a generational thing.
Lord Higgins: We shall need to go into the statistics further, other than across the Floor of the Committee. My impression still is that the situation portrayed by the Minister is exaggerated. Be that as it may, I believe that the Committee would be grateful if the Minister could clarify the distinction between the system that the Government abandoned and the system they now propose. As I understand it, the only difference is the distinction between a smartcard, on which all the data are embedded, and a Switch card which does not have the data on the card but allows the data to be read once it has been through the slot. I believe that is the only difference between the two systems.
The noble Baroness has enlightened the Committee a little on how the cash is to be paid. We shall need to read carefully what she said. No doubt, we can clarify that in the way that she has described—in a meeting. However, like the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, the date suggested is not convenient for me, but no doubt something can be sorted out. It would certainly be helpful to have that clarified over the table, so to speak.
594
One crucial point, as far as the post offices are concerned, is that estimates suggest that there will be a loss of something like 40 per cent of existing post offices. The Minister has said that they will consider a subsidy as needed. I am not clear about the purpose of that subsidy.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I do not know from where the noble Lord produced the figure of 40 per cent of post offices. He may be confusing that with 30 to 40 per cent of the revenue of some post offices being derived from the payment of social security benefits. I was about to intervene because I was unsure whether the noble Lord meant what he said.
Lord Higgins: It was a slip of the tongue. What does the Minister suppose will be the reduction in post offices if there is no subsidy? What does she envisage is the purpose of the subsidy?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I cannot go into that. In the recent Bill in the other place a power has been taken by the Government to pay subsidy if they believe it appropriate; in other words, they may pay subsidy. That would be a matter of negotiation with POCL, and so on. The intent behind it is simple: I believe that we all share an appreciation of the importance of the post office, particularly in rural areas and in deprived inner urban areas, as the centre for offering cash and other facilities to local people. The Government, no more than the previous administration, do not wish to see that network shrink. That does not mean to say—as I tried to say earlier—that individual post offices may go on to close and not be re-opened when someone running it retires because it has not been possible to cross-subsidise it.
One other power may be of interest to the noble Lord. I understand that in the Postal Services Bill extra powers are given to POUNC—which I believe will be renamed as the post office users council—to take on board, to query and to interrogate the need for any local post office closure. So we actually strengthen the ability to ensure that the post office network, as far as is possible, remains to serve the communities which are so heavily dependent upon it.
Earl Russell: Usually having the first amendment after dinner is by way of being a penance; but tonight, for the benefit of those who perhaps had to hurry their dinner, we provided the Committee with a sandwich. The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, and I, supplied the bread; the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, supplied the meat —and very good meat it was too and I shall read it with a great deal of care; the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, supplied the butter; the noble Baronesses, Lady Gale and Lady Pitkeathley, supplied the mustard; and the right reverend Prelate supplied the salt.
The Lord Bishop of Hereford: Highly seasoned!
Earl Russell: I can assure him that it has in no wise lost its savour; and the Minister provided the fire at which we have been very gently toasted.

595
Let us react for a little while to the toasting. I understand and hear what the Minister says; that is, that people will remain able to collect their cash at post offices. But that assurance can be valid only in so far as they can find any post offices. That is the central weakness in the Minister's position. It is a further weakness in her position that, while she is responsible for the delivery of benefit, she is not responsible for the survival of the post office network. Here we have something where the acid of the change programme has perhaps corroded the joining up of government, such joining up as previously existed.
I am not certain that the Minister recognises it as a responsibility in these proposals to ensure the survival of the post office network. She talked of post office customers voting with their feet. I do not believe she realises quite how persuasive a canvasser the Treasury can be when it gives its mind to it. Every year the Treasury renegotiates with the Post Office a contract for the delivery of benefit. Every year there is a downward pressure on that contract—of course there always is with anything that the Treasury negotiates.
That has had the effect—certainly in post offices in my part of London and I believe in many others—of increasing the waiting time at post offices, to the point where the pressure to consider another system has become rather intense. So the voting with the feet may have happened to feet which have been quite heavily guided. Once again I remind Ministers that they should not assume that "efficiency" is actually efficient.
The Minister asked post offices to stop treating this Bill as a threat. It is of course difficult because, as the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, pointed out, they are small businesses and must plan their future. If small businesses are to stop treating this as a threat, they need something in this Bill which will enable them to be sure that they have a secure future for which they can plan; otherwise the uncertainty will drive them out of business. It is a hit like an argument as to whether to repair the library, or whether there is no need to repair it because we are going to build a new library shortly. That may be true. But it is no good if, in the mean time, the rain comes in and destroys all the books. So if the post office network crumbles before the Government have come up with an adequate replacement, there is not going to be any easy recovery. That is why some reassurance is necessary now, at this moment, before any more closures take place. These closures have reached the point where they are creating a situation of real danger.
I do not know whether the Minister has seen a report in the Independent today, based on a press release from my honourable friend Mr Webb. He has discovered that the Minister's colleague Mr Rooker has sent out a letter to sub-postmasters, objecting strongly to them trying to persuade people to get their benefits through the post office rather than transferring to ACT. I cannot feel that my honourable friend was in any way wrong to use the word "threat" in relation to that letter. This sort of thing does rather encourage post
596
offices to feel that they are under threat. If the Minister wants to persuade them that they are not, she will have some quite hard work to do.
I must thank her very warmly indeed for the offer of the meeting with Mr Johnson. That is a truly welcome offer, subject to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, about the date. The absence of all those involved in the Post Office Services Bill would clearly very much weaken anything we were able to do; but I am sure that it will prove possible even in the busy timetable of Ministers to find another.
It is possible that we shall be reassured about the Government's long-term intention. Government long-term intentions, however, do change in the light of events, usually economic circumstances. There is still a case to be considered about the need for a long-stop to be put into this Bill. Even if I were absolutely perfectly reassured, therefore, while I would be putting a case in very different terms, I might not necessarily cease from putting a case.
The Minister made a great argument about the cost of £1.36 per taxpayer. That is not only a cost of delivering benefit; it is also a cost of delivering a post office facility, which is the real heart of communication in many communities. I wonder whether, when one takes that into account, it might be cheap at the price? This is where it is important that preserving the Post Office is not her departmental responsibility. One wonders whether it carries the weight in the equation which perhaps it should.
I am also very struck by the contrast between the Minister's answer this time and her answer to the previous amendment. In the latter answer she was putting forward—I do not believe that she will think this an unfair description—a very strong communitarian morality, in which some people see an authoritarian tinge. On this amendment she was putting forward a case about post offices which involves the risk of dissolving the cement which holds together a spontaneous, natural community.
Those two arguments make rather uncomfortable bedfellows. Yet the mere fact that they are uncomfortable bedfellows creates a certain rather uncomfortable logic in putting them together. If you destroy the spontaneous sense of community, you may well be under temptation to create it artificially by Government authority. It really does not work. If it is not there spontaneously, Government cannot make it.
However, that is not a problem which I would for one moment suggest addressing in the Division Lobbies at this time of night. For the time being, therefore, and subject to discussions with the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, about the text of a future amendment, I beg leave to withdraw this one.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 181 not moved.]
10.30 p.m.
Lord Goodhartmoved Amendment No. 182:
After Clause 65, insert the following new clause—
TEMPORARY ENTITLEMENT TO INVALID CARE ALLOWANCE ON DEATH OF PERSON CARED FOR
(" . At the end of section 70 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 (invalid care allowance), there shall be inserted—
"(11) The Secretary of State shall make regulations in respect of persons who cease to be in receipt of invalid care allowance as a result of the death of the person in respect of whose care the allowance has been claimed.
(12) Regulations under subsection (11) shall set the condition for the award to be satisfied for a period of eight weeks from the date on which that person ceased to be in receipt of invalid care allowance.".").
The noble Lord said: This amendment deals with the situation of somebody who is in receipt of invalid care allowance, where the person who is receiving the care dies and the invalid care allowance therefore stops.
The level of care required in order to qualify for invalid care allowance is very substantial and there are therefore likely to be very considerable physical demands on the carer. What is more, the person who is being cared for is likely to be closely related to the person providing the care. The person being cared for may be a parent, a child, a spouse or a partner of the person providing the care. Therefore, in addition to the physical demands of caring, there is likely to be a considerable emotional drain on the person providing the care, who, almost inevitably, will be distressed by the fact that he or she is having to provide the care.
As a result of this situation, the blow to the carer when the person being cared for dies is likely to be very severe. Indeed, this will be a great emotional loss in most cases. The person providing the care is likely to feel that he or she has, in a sense, lost all purpose in life when the person being cared for—who has, in effect, been the centre of his or her life—dies. In those circumstances, surely what the carer needs is a break— a holiday if one can be found—or, at the very least, the chance to do a little thinking about the future, which will be very different from the past.
Carers do not want—nor should they be asked—to rush immediately from the deathbed into the process of looking for a job or claiming means-tested benefits. Therefore, surely carers ought to be entitled to a kind of respite break; that is to say, a few weeks' rest. We propose eight weeks in the amendment, which in the circumstances is hardly substantial. We believe that these carers should be entitled to a few weeks' break in which to pull themselves together, think about the future and recover from the immediate aftermath of their loss, without having to go to the jobcentre or to the benefit office to claim benefit. During that time, they will be able to bring themselves to think about what the future holds for them. Surely the eight weeks that we suggest is a minimum that ought to be provided for former carers. We believe that this is a necessary requirement if we are to regard ourselves as
598
a properly compassionate community towards those who will find themselves in a very difficult and painful situation. I beg to move.
Lord Astor of Hever: We on these Benches have considerable sympathy with the proposed new clause, as outlined so clearly by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. We do not believe that the cost of this proposal would be very high. We probably all have experience of the problems attached to the winding-up of the estates of parents or relations. Genuine problems are encountered by bereaved carers and this proposal would provide a breathing space for them at a distressing time.
The Minister in the other place was sympathetic to the amendment and said that the Government would look at the matter in the round. I therefore look forward with some hope to hearing the Minister's reply.
Baroness Pitkeathley: I, too, should like to speak in support of the amendment. I never forget the carer who once said to me, "We're expected to go from the graveside to the jobcentre". I believe that the death of someone for whom you have been caring, especially if the situation has gone on for some years, is most distressing. I am sure that my noble friend the Minister will do her best to look sympathetically at this proposal.
We are all aiming to enable carers to get back into the workforce so as to help them both financially and emotionally. Sometimes they will need such a period of time in order to get themselves geared up for seeking new employment. I remind the Committee that there is a precedent for the eight-week breathing space, as it were, in that the carer premium on income support extends for eight weeks beyond the death of the cared for person. That too may encourage the Minister to look sympathetically on the amendment.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Amendment No. 182 would extend the period of entitlement for all recipients of invalid care allowance to eight weeks after the death of the person being cared for and in respect of whose care ICA was being paid. As the Committee is aware, I have a great deal of sympathy with the intention behind this amendment. I hope that I may respond to it in terms of the Government's agenda of the National Strategy for Carers—Caring for Carers—which was published last year. In that report the Prime Minister said that,
"Carers are among the unsung heroes of British life"
and that they,
"should be properly recognised and properly supported".
I believe that the entire Committee would share that view.
The national strategy made clear the Government's intention to do this and, among the many positive initiatives that they introduced, stated that they would,
"keep under review how financial support can best meet [carers'] needs".

599
Clearly, therefore, the Government are committed to taking forward a review of the financial support available to carers. In doing this, however, we must take account of the work currently being done to prepare our White Paper response to the Royal Commission on Long Term Care, which we hope to publish later this year. I can, therefore, confirm that the financial assistance given to carers is currently under careful consideration, and, as and when we have specific proposals to make, we shall, of course, consult the carers' representative groups.
I turn to the amendment itself. I was not quite sure where the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, stood as regards the differences within groups of carers, as the group of carers which the amendment seeks to help is small, though none the less deserving of consideration because of that. Bereavement is a universally difficult time, and family finances have to reassessed. However, the benefit system already provides the kind of protection he seeks for many carers whose need is greatest, in particular for those on low incomes and those who have lost a spouse—those who move from being a carer to going to the jobcentre.
About half of all carers who receive invalid care allowance also receive income support and the carer premium, which is the increase paid specifically for people entitled to ICA. Those who would not receive it would tend to be the wife who is married to a working husband caring for either her mother or his mother. As a result of being married to someone who is in work, she would not be eligible for income support. However, if she were the only daughter, or the daughter looking after her mother as a full-time unwaged job and she therefore received ICA topped up with income support, under the current rules she would receive the eight-week rollover. The eight-week rollover is already given to those in financial need. However, it is not given to those whose emotional stress may be no less difficult but who do not have the same level of financial need because they are not dependent on the benefit system.
As I say, about half of those carers who receive the carer premium, IS and ICA will continue to receive the rollover for eight weeks after the responsibility ends. In addition, during this eight-week period they are also exempt from the need to be available for and actively seeking employment in order to qualify for IS. This gives them time to adjust. Therefore the amendment would not help them.
In addition, a quarter of all carers who receive ICA are looking after a spouse. Again the woman in that situation would not normally receive income support on top of her ICA because the man would receive the benefits, for example, IB or whatever. Any top-ups would be paid to the man. When a spouse dies, bereavement benefits are usually paid promptly—within a few days of the claim being made. As such payments are made in preference to ICA—in the sense that one is not paid twice for the same contingency—an ICA run-on would be of little or no material assistance for those carers either, because normally such a person would then qualify for widow's benefit, which would displace the ICA.
600
For those who are most vulnerable and in greatest need, therefore, their income is already protected, despite the loss of ICA on the death of the disabled person for whom they have been caring. The amendment would, in practical terms, help only those carers whose income is over income support level. There are, of course, priorities in terms of expenditure here. Nevertheless, whether or not this is a well targeted proposal, I hope that I have made clear that, in broader terms, the Government are aware of the need for adequate financial support for carers. They are also aware of their existing commitment to keep this under review in the context of longer-term care issues and the need to address the concerns of carers in the round.
I do not feel that I can ask the Members of the Committee to take it from me today that we shall be specifically revisiting this matter, but, in the light of the fact that we are producing a White Paper in response to the Royal Commission, in which a range of issues will be covered—I am not party to that review but I suspect that issues such as financial support for carers and respite care and so on will be explored—I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: I am grateful for the support that the amendment received from the noble Lord, Lord Astor, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley. Although I accept, as the Minister pointed out, that not everyone who is a carer will necessarily lose income as a result of the ending of the invalid care allowance, this is a substantial problem—not least for those who are not formally married but who have partners, either of the opposite sex or of the same sex.
I am grateful that this is one of the issues which will be considered during the course of the consultation on the White Paper. We shall have to consider whether to bring this amendment back again in the light of what has been said today, but, for the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Russellmoved Amendment No. 1183:
After Clause 65, insert the following new clause—
INCAPACITY BENEFIT: CARERS
(" .—(1) In paragraph 2 of Schedule 3 to the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 (contribution conditions for short-term incapacity benefit), at the beginning there shall be inserted "Subject to paragraph 2A below".
(2) After that paragraph there shall be inserted—
"2A. A person shall be taken to satisfy the contribution conditions for short-term incapacity benefit mentioned in paragraph 2 above if, throughout the last two complete lax years before the relevant benefit year, he has been precluded from employment by responsibilities at home.".").
The noble Earl said: In moving the amendment, I should begin by offering an apology to the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley. She may remember that in a particularly moving speech during the Welfare Reform Bill, when we were discussing the tightened contribution conditions for incapacity benefit in

601
Committee, she pleaded for an exemption from these contribution conditions for those who had given what were perhaps the last years of their life in which they would have been capable of regular work to the task of caring for someone unable to care for themselves. I think that the Minister heard that speech with a certain degree of cautious sympathy. I hope that she will not dispute that description. I thought at that point that an amendment was probably in progress which might have been accepted at a later stage of the Bill—but, of course, we ultimately knocked that clause out. You cannot amend words that are not there, and when the Bill came back from another place it contained no concession to the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley. I hope that she will understand what moved us to go ahead and knock out the clause. It is a regret, which I felt at the time, that it was not possible in those circumstances to give a hearing to the very powerful case she had made.
We do not want to discourage those involved from caring for sick or elderly relatives. There is an argument of common humanity here—and that argument is not to be dismissed. There is also a very strong argument from the point of view of the Treasury. I do not know what is the latest update of the figure of the amount of money which carers save the Treasury. When I first came into this House it was £24 billion; since then I have seen it quoted as £30 billion. It may have gone up again. I thank the noble Baroness for confirming that that is the latest figure.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am grateful to the noble Earl for giving way. He is making a speech which centres essentially around carers as we more conventionally understand them in terms of recipients of ICA. But, of course, his amendment, which concerns HRP, obviously involves essentially the carers of children—that is, parents. Do I understand that the noble Earl is concerned only with ICA recipients as opposed to other kinds of carers? I should tell him that my response is predicated on the second of those.
Earl Russell: I thank the Minister for that contribution. The arguments have some point in common. It is not only the old who need to be cared for; the need to care for those who need it is one which must fall somewhere.
Those who are undertaking it cannot, at one and the same time, be in the labour market. So if they are out of the labour market because they are doing something else which is necessarily in the public interest, which someone else would probably have to be paid to do, possibly out of public funds if they did not do it, a case for the exemption from the contribution conditions is quite a strong one. I beg to move.
Baroness Pitkeathley: Far be it from me to disagree with the noble Earl, particularly in view of his most gracious apology about a previous Bill, but a great
602
many carers do combine paid work with caring. It is one of the main features of the National Carers Strategy to enable those carers better to do so.
Earl Russell: I appreciate that "superwoman" exists, but not every woman can rise to it.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Perhaps I may add to my noble friend's contribution. Seventy-five per cent of all married women work and more than 60 per cent of married women with children work.
As we have heard, this amendment relates to the contribution conditions for incapacity benefit. There are two contribution conditions for entitlement to IB. Currently the first condition requires a person to have actually paid a certain amount of contributions in any one tax year. But from April 2001, provisions in the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act will require contributions to have actually been paid in one of the past three income tax years rather than in any tax year. We believe that that is reasonable. The purpose of IB is to provide a replacement income for people who previously had earnings from work and have become incapable of work due to illness.
The way this contribution condition works at present means that a person who has had no contact with the labour market for many years would still qualify for IB as long as they had paid the minimum amount of contributions in just one year. We do not think it right for that to continue, which is why the Government pursued the matter last summer.
The second contribution condition for IB requires contributions or credits equivalent to 50 times the lower earnings limit in both the past two tax years. That condition is unchanged. People will continue to be able to satisfy the condition by credits alone.
The amendment before us would represent a significant departure from the current arrangements. It would allow tax years during which people are unable to work because of caring responsibilities at home to count towards satisfying the contribution conditions for IB. As drafted, the amendment refers to the first contribution condition. People unable to work because of caring responsibilities at home would be deemed to have satisfied the first contribution condition regardless of whether they have ever paid any contributions at all. We believe that it is reasonable to expect people who have been in a position to work to have made at least a modest contribution in order to get a contributory benefit.
We do recognise that some people who have not had an opportunity to pay contributions should be able to qualify for IB. We are protecting the position of carers who have not paid contributions in the past three years. Carers include those caring for children with severe disabilities—children who attract either the higher or the middle rate DLA component. They can use credits to qualify for IB provided they have paid contributions at some point. From April 2001 we are making special provision to allow entitlement to IB for disabled young people who have never had an opportunity to pay contributions; in other words,

603
those who in the past would have gone on to severe disablement allowance. But people who have responsibilities at home have not necessarily been prevented, other than by their own choice, from working to a greater extent and paying contributions. After all, we are talking about a contributory benefit. Such people would not qualify at present and extending IB to them, regardless of their circumstances, would therefore represent a significant breach of the contributory principle.
The Government fully support the wishes of those, for example, who want to remain at home and care for their children when they are very young. But it does not follow that if people choose to stay at home to look after their children rather than combine looking after their children with a part-time job they should have access to a contributory benefit which is intended as an earnings replacement for people who have been in work and would still be in work were it not for their illness.
After all, many people do combine childcare responsibilities with work and do earn enough to qualify for IB. The minimum amount of contributions required equates to earnings of just £1,650 in a period of 25 weeks or less. The benefit is not therefore confined to those who are in well-paid jobs. The minimum wage will bring many more part-time workers, in particular women, above the earnings threshold for benefits—the lower earnings limit— which is around 18 hours a week at the minimum wage. I think that the essential point raised by the amendment is how far should the benefits system provide earnings replacement benefit for those who have not been in recent employment, who have not paid contributions and who have made other choices.
I hope that, on the basis of what I have said, the Committee will agree that our contribution conditions for IB strike the right balance and that the noble Earl will withdraw his amendment.
Earl Russell: I suppose that I should have guessed that nothing on earth is more difficult than to argue against the Department of Social Security's filing system. One can argue against natural justice, common sense and useful effects, but one cannot argue against a ministry's system of classification. It seems to be written in tablets of stone, although I am inclined to think that that would he understating the case.
When the Minister invokes a point of principle, she should perhaps think twice about the actual effects of such a point of principle. If the effects of a principle are not good, one should go back and wonder whether that principle is correctly defined. However, I do not think that we shall be able to get very far with that tonight. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 66 agreed to.
Schedule 6 agreed to.
Clause 67 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 184 not moved.]
Schedule 7 agreed to.
Clauses 68 to 70 agreed to.
Earl Russellmoved Amendment No. 185:
After Clause 70, insert the following new clause—
BENEFITS PAYABLE TO CERTAIN SINGLE CLAIMANTS UNDER THE AGE OF 25
(" . Regulations 3, 4 and 5 of the Housing Benefit (General) Amendment Regulations 1996 (the "amending regulations") are hereby revoked, and in consequence thereof Regulations 10, II and 12A of the Housing Benefit (General) Regulations 1987 shall have effect as if the amendments contained in the amending regulations had not been made.").
The noble Earl said: I move this amendment with the support of the LGA, the ALG, the Child Poverty Action Group, Mencap, Centrepoint, NCH Action for Children, Barnardo's, Crisis, CHAS, the Churches National Housing Coalition, the National Homeless Alliance, the National Rent Deposit Forum, the Chartered Institute of Housing, and the Children's Society. That is not a negligible list. It represents the collective wisdom of most of those who work in the field.
The effect of this amendment would be to abolish the single room rent restriction for housing benefit for those under the age of 25. That provision restricts young people to housing benefit at a level which is supposed to be appropriate for the rent of a single room in a given area. However, I include the word "supposed" advisedly, because the level of support is very rarely sufficient.
The provision was introduced in 1996. The Minister and I both said that it would be a disaster. When one makes such a statement, one always watches to see whether it was in fact true. In this case I think that we were optimistic. The effect has been even worse than both of us then supposed. The policy rested on a fundamental misapprehension of the nature of the housing market.
I think that I am correct in saying that the intention behind the policy was, first, to encourage people to shop around and to trade down to property perhaps more appropriate to their income. It was felt that housing benefit was sustaining an artificially high level of rents. Secondly, it was hoped that, in some cases, it would induce landlords to reduce the level of their rents. Thirdly, it was hoped that it might lower the level of market rents overall. It has done none of those things.
A large body of research has been clone on this subject, a certain amount of which I have in front of me. However, I need rely only on the research done jointly by the DETR and the DSS. That seems very clear in its findings. Tenants who considered this possibility found that it was not an option, because there was simply nothing cheaper to be found in their immediate area. I know that the Minister will not dispute this so I do not think I need bother with finding the page.
The research concluded, perfectly correctly in my opinion, in line with all other research on the subject that the system would not work unless there were rents

605
available in the area that were within the limit of the single room rent. In most of the areas studied—now a considerable number—that is simply not the case. Whether that is inherent in the principle of the thing, or whether it is simply that those who are working With the Treasury necessarily fix the rents which they allow too low, I should not care to say. But since, if it is the second, I do not expect it to change, I doubt whether the point is material.
In only 13 per cent of cases cited in the DETR research were people able to negotiate any reduction of rent with their landlord. Of the remainder, 96 per cent were left to pay a shortfall in rent themselves. The shortfalls were substantial: in a few cases they could even be up to £50 a week. Twenty per cent of those people met costs out of borrowing; 81 per cent met them out of benefits. The Minister will have noticed that there is a small overlap in the figures. I do not think it ought to cause any surprise; it is not particularly mysterious. Twenty per cent of those involved in the survey were found to owe debts of over £500. On income support or JSA, debts of over £500 are pretty considerable. We need to know a good deal more about the level of debt on benefit than we do at present.
The provision has been no more popular with landlords than it has been with tenants. The extent of agreement on the single room rent between the landlord interest and the tenant interest is one of the most striking things about it. On the whole, landlords do not reduce rents. In the northern city surveyed in the DETR research, 33 per cent had stopped letting to single people under 25. In the inner London borough surveyed, 25 per cent had stopped doing so. Those are pretty considerable figures in a market where supply was already not on the plentiful side.
A great many more have moved out of the housing benefit market altogether, and a certain number have even moved out of the private rented market altogether and have sold the property. That was particularly clear in the Centrepoint survey of the single room rent in Devon. But since I failed to lay my hands on that around midnight last night, I shall not quote figures from it. The Minister and I have been over this course before. She knows about it as well as I do. So we are seeing a diminution in supply in a market where supply was already particularly thin.
When this matter was debated in another place, we were encouraged to hope for something from the Green Paper. The words of the Green Paper are not strong enough to be described as weasel words—"mice" might be more appropriate. With the leave of the Committee, I should like to read a fair part of what the Green Paper has to say on the subject. It is not very much. It states:
"A stable home provides a secure foundation from which to find work, and Housing Benefit should help provide this environment. A number of commentators believe that the Single Room Rent restriction … is making it difficult for young single people to access and maintain accommodation. For example, critics say that landlords are refusing to rent to under 25s".
606
One wonders whether "a number of commentators" should read "all commentators". If there is a commentator who says anything else I should be very interested to hear from him or her. The nearest one gets to a suggestion is in the next paragraph. Whether these words even amount to a suggestion is perhaps grammatically open-minded:
"One option to consider is to broaden the definition of the Single Room Rent so that a range of rents for shared accommodation is used (e.g. shared houses, flats and bedsits) instead of the current restrictive one room non-self contained accommodation definition".
I suppose that that might be a little better than nothing. It is true that it would deal with one of the big points made at the time, which was that there was simply not enough accommodation for single people under 25. But the whole proposal was based on an entire misapprehension of the nature of the housing market, which is why it did not work. It was believed that it was a demand-led market in which housing benefit pushed up the level of rents. First, that grossly underestimated the shortage of private rented accommodation, especially at the cheap end of the market. The private rented sector has been in decline since 1919. We cannot afford to let it go much further. There are some needs, especially those involving considerable mobility, which cannot satisfactorily be met in any way.
Secondly, I believe that landlords' costs were grossly underestimated. Private landlords, as distinct from registered social landlords, are not charities; they are not in business for purely philanthropic motives. Therefore, if we require them to take a rent on which they do not make a profit there is no good reason why they should stay in business, and a great many of them do not.
Thirdly, I believe that the policy grossly underestimated the amount of profit that landlords could make out of selling their property and investing the capital in equities. In the present state of the housing market that point is even truer than it was before. After all, if a landlord can double his income simply by selling his property, doing no work and investing the money, why should he go on with the troublesome business of repairing and maintaining it and dealing with disputes between tenants when he can make a great deal more money by doing nothing at all? One cannot expect private business to be simply a philanthropy. Therefore, the policy failed because it was fundamentally misconceived.
By now it is clear that we cannot expect people to go on meeting large amounts of rent out of their income support or JSA. That will be even truer if the kind of conditionality of which the Minister spoke earlier becomes a normal part of the payment of benefits. It means that people who are caught by that conditionality will be instantly evicted. That will mean either a very large disorderly crowd on the streets or a considerable addition to public expenditure. I simply do not see how people can be kept in good health while they pay their rent with large chunks of income support. If housing benefit does not meet the full rent we are in very great trouble. The Minister said in

607
relation to the 1997 Bill—I welcomed her comment— that she still accepted the principle of the 1986 Act that income support should not be used to meet rent. I hope that the noble Baroness can tell the Committee that in the course of the Government's review of housing benefit that principle will continue to hold. If not, we shall all be in very deep trouble. That includes private sector landlords as well as the rest of us. There is not much of the private sector left. We cannot afford to play fast and loose with what there is. If we lose it, replacements will cost us all a great deal more. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I shall respond to the voices around the Chamber tonight! Amendment No. 185 seeks to remove the rent restriction rule—the single room rent—which applies to most young people under 25 years of age living in the deregulated private rented sector.
Perhaps I may respond to the noble Earl's point about income support. We believe that income support is what people should live on. Housing benefit should be available to meet housing bills of a reasonable level as defined by the rent officer. The noble Earl asked whether there was any expectation that income support should be asked to pay housing bills. I take it that he was not saying that he would not consider any possible suggestion that one might embed into income support an additional allowance to cover part of the housing bill with some element of discretion. That is one of the proposals being floated in discussions. The noble Earl's point was that if any such housing benefit were to be embedded into income support, it must be additional to, and not eating into, current levels of income support. It is a view which he and I have expressed over the years.
The single room rent restriction was not of our making. I do not want to give the impression that it was a success or without fault. The available research, some of which was quoted by the noble Earl, is clear on that. We undertook to keep the single room rent restriction under review when we came to office. We acted swiftly to remove its extension—I think that it would have been dire and monstrous—to single people under the age of 60. It would have produced a situation where a widow, for example, was required to go into a house without even self-contained accommodation.
The noble Earl made reference to the bulk of research evidence which suggests among other things that young people are placed at a disadvantage when seeking to rent accommodation because landlords feel that they will be unable to pay the rent if they are dependent on housing benefit. Let me reassure the noble Earl that we have considered carefully all the research evidence so far available. We understand the concerns but we need to look at the range of options so that people claiming HB are not in a better position than those who have to pay the rent from their own resources.
The noble Earl's amendment would run contrary to this. For example, under the noble Earl's amendment, a single young person who is unemployed would be able to claim housing benefit for a one-bedroomed flat
608
whereas someone on modest wages would be unlikely to afford such accommodation and would almost certainly be sharing accommodation in that situation. I do not think that it is unreasonable to expect young people to share accommodation provided that they are not particularly vulnerable or have special needs—for example, those who are care leavers, the severely disabled or the like. I do not think that it is unreasonable that young people should share accommodation.
My difficulty is that local authorities have discretion with government funding—it is a matter I have raised previously with the noble Earl—to provide additional financial help with rent to those who are in most need. For example, they could exercise their discretion if they chose to help those they believe should live in independent accommodation. To my distress, many authorities are simply not spending anywhere near the money allocated to them by central government. We want to encourage them to do so, and have recently issued revised guidance to explain the nature and intent of the discretionary scheme.
We have the exceptional hardship scheme but at present, although government are allocating nearly £20 million a year, only £8 million or so of that money is being taken up by local authorities. While Hillingdon is spending virtually every pound allocated to it by government to meet the problems, some of which have been outlined by noble Lords, Hackney is spending only a tenth of its allocation. While Stoke-on-Trent is spending well above its allocation, Blackburn is spending only a sixth of it. Leicester and Stratford-on-Avon are spending all of their allocation aimed to help to meet the problems of hardship under housing benefit restrictions whereas my own authority, Norwich, is spending only a fifth of it; and Oxford is spending not a penny. I know that that is a high rental area because my family lives there and I have to help with the rent. Yet local authorities are not taking advantage of a government scheme designed to help people in such need.
11.15 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Perhaps she will find that the change of control that recently took place in the Oxford City Council may lead to a different outcome.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Even more that the dissemination of useful information in your Lordships' House will have all authorities, irrespective of party colour, taking advantage of additional resources placed by government to allow them to meet the need.
I have studied the figures and there is no rhyme or reason why of two authorities in adjacent areas one will spend not a penny of the allocation while the other will spend every penny. It is entirely discretionary, but it seemed to us the proper way to respond to the problem in the interim period before we finally determined in the light of the consultation exercise how we take the Green Paper forward.

609
We inherited a problem. We responded by making our discretionary hardship scheme more generous. Local authorities have not availed themselves of that money, even though it was meant to be bridging finance until the Government's proposals have been formulated in the light of response to the housing Green Paper. The money is available to local authorities, but they are not using it. I hope that with your Lordships' help they will.
Instead of going down the route proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, we have suggested in the housing Green Paper that one option to overcome the barrier to young people obtaining accommodation is to broaden the definition of the single room rent so that it includes a range of rents for shared accommodation—shared houses, flats and bedsits—instead of the current definition which limits it to the average rent for one room which is not self- contained. We need to understand how that will work in practice, which is why we are seeking views. We also need to understand how landlords will react to the situation and whether the option will provide young people with accommodation at an affordable price, giving them the security and decency of accommodation they need in order to take up employment.
The Green Paper has raised a range of issues. We are considering the responses and reach our decision in the light of those. In the meantime, we have made available the bridging finance in order to overcome some of the hardships caused. I hope that the noble Earl will understand that I cannot give firm commitments beyond that, except to say that we are looking carefully at the responses to the housing Green Paper and we take the research very seriously, as he would expect. I hope that in the light of my comments the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw his amendments.
The Lord Bishop of Hereford: Perhaps I may ask the Minister to clarify the discretionary money. I understand that care leavers are exempt from a single rent restriction up to the age of 22. They are deemed to be vulnerable and may well need self-contained accommodation. However, between the ages of 22 and 25 no such protection is provided, except presumably the discretionary money at the disposal of local authorities. What happens to those local authorities which are spending all the discretionary money but in which vulnerable care leavers may be in that position and for whom no money is available? Is it possible that some specific exclusion may be made for vulnerable care leavers between the ages of 22 and 25?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: That is a point well taken. I have all the figures from local authorities and see that those which are spending every penny from the exceptional hardship scheme are few. The total expenditure is about 40 per cent across the country. Therefore, almost all local authorities have head space to meet the need which exemplifies the groups for whom the money was intended.
610
Last year we sent out a circular on housing and council tax benefit, A35/99, because we were worried about local authorities failing to take up the resource. It clarified the conditions that must be satisfied: for example, housing benefit must be calculated under the local reference rent or single room rent rules; there must be a shortfall between that and the maximum rent; there must be some housing benefit payable to him; and he would suffer exceptional hardship. However, it goes on to state that "exceptional" should be taken to mean "out of the ordinary". Paragraph 10 states:
"That is not the same as 'very unusual' and criteria cannot be set that can only rarely be met. Nor should a claimant be ruled out because someone in similar circumstances would suffer similar hardship. That could mean that both of them would be in exceptional hardship".
Paragraph 12 states that local authorities must consider each case individually and should not devise groups of claimants who, by their very nature, experience hardship. A young person, for example, with special dietary needs may be unable to cut back on essential expenditure in quite the same way and should not be refused such a scheme. In other words, first, there is head space for most local authorities to meet the needs. Secondly, the Government were at great pains to say that "exceptional" should be unusual; that is, not so rare that it never happens, but simply "not normal".
Therefore, one would never say that all students, by virtue of being students, would suffer hardship and thus would be eligible. However, one could say that a student with, for example, a physical disability or a problem with access or who needed extra heating or whatever, might very well be deemed by the local authority to come within this qualification. I am concerned by the fact that the resource was put in place through recognition by government that hardship could be created because of the operation of the single room rent, yet local authorities have not availed themselves of it while we consider our way forward on the responses to the housing Green Paper.
The Earl of Listowel: Before the noble Baroness sits down, perhaps I may ask her to clarify one further point arising from what she has just said. What about young women who are pregnant and approaching the birth of their child who wish to move into more appropriate accommodation which they might be able to afford once the baby is born? If they wish to move into that accommodation three months or so before they are entitled to, because it is more than a single room rent will they be able to do so under this arrangement?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: By my definition, they would certainly be eligible for payments from the exceptional hardship scheme if the local authority so devised. I am not sure whether they would qualify as an exempt group. I stand to be corrected on that, but I believe that at the moment they do not qualify as an exempt group as do care leavers. However, in my view,

611
the type of situation that the noble Earl described would merit serious consideration by a local authority for an exceptional hardship scheme.
Earl Russell: I thank the Minister very warmly for that reply and for being, I believe, as helpful as she possibly could be. Again, I express my gratitude for what was done for those aged over 25 with regard to the single room rent. I am sure that the Minister remembers, as I do, a good many private conversations on that subject. I shall not repeat them.
I am also grateful to her for again publicising the existence of the hardship money. That is important and it needs to be repeated. However, granted that there is no apparent logic in what she describes, it is easier to be logical in the allocation of an adequate budget than in the allocation of an inadequate budget. Many local authorities believe themselves to have an inadequate budget. In handling an inadequate budget, one must select priorities in a way that will always be illogical. Therefore, possibly if the Government were able to give a slightly more generous interpretation than they have yet done to the phrase "crude and universal capping", as used in their manifesto, we might see a little more progress on this matter.
I thank the right reverend Prelate and the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, for raising the issues of care leavers and pregnant women, both of which I should have liked to raise myself but I felt that I had trespassed on the patience of the Committee long enough. These two issues can easily be, as it were, chipped off the monolith of the single room rent and altered even if the policy were to be unchanged. Were that—I hope not—to be the case, I hope that those two bits might be chipped off it.
I am not altogether convinced by what the Minister said with regard to people in work having worse accommodation than those on housing benefit. After all, a great many people in work are now on housing benefit. In the London Borough of Kingston a new police constable receives housing benefit. I believe that by raising questions such as those, the Minister simply draws attention, first, to the level of wages, which is outside our purview tonight, and, secondly, to the more general problems of the housing market. Those are questions which I think all of us in all parties need to think about a good deal more fundamentally than we yet have done.
Obviously we are not going to solve the problems of housing by fundamentally non-market solutions. Equally obviously, we are not going to solve them by pure market solutions in a market working as it is. Every taxation provision, every legislation provision, all of these are things that influence the market. We should wonder whether the market is actually balanced correctly as it is at the moment because it certainly is not delivering any very substantial supply of rented accommodation at the lower end of the market while, at the same time, we have a flood of money going into the upper end of the housing market, especially in the London area, which is creating a very considerable distortion and absorbing capital which might be more productively invested elsewhere.
612
This again is not a question which I think the Committee would wish me to pursue at this time of night. I merely give notice that I think all of us, including myself, need to go away and think about it. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 71 and 72 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 186 not moved.]
Clause 73 [Contributions in respect of benefits in kind: Great Britain]:
Lord Higginsmoved Amendment No. 187:
Page 74, line 36, at end insert—
("( ) Nothing in this section shall apply to any childcare provision by the employer, which shall he exempt from Class 1A contributions.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the clause which this amendment seeks to alter is one which has obvious implications as far as the Budget is concerned and raises our usual dispute as to whether a particular measure should be implemented by the Department of Social Security or the Treasury. It also raises the question whether everything which is taxable ought to be NICable. The Government are somewhat in disarray as far as that is concerned.
Amendment No. 187 actually seeks to do something which the Chancellor of the Exchequer said he was going to do in the Budget: to encourage employers to help employees with child care, all provision in kind will remain exempt from employer class 1A national insurance contributions when these are extended to other employee benefits from April 2000. This matter was raised on the same amendment in another place and, despite the fact that it did what the Government said in their Budget they were going to do, the Government went through the Lobbies to vote it down. My understanding is that they are now proposing to do this by regulation, which does seem a rather strange series of events.
In all events, the noble Baroness, with her customary courtesy, sent me, I presume in draft, the various regulations relating to some of these matters. I am minded of the comment by the noble Baroness, Lady Castle, either at our last meeting on this Bill or the one before, where her secretary read out the totally incomprehensible piece of legislation and Lady Castle replied, "Read out the explanatory notes" and her secretary replied, "That is the explanatory note". The explanatory note to these draft regulations which the noble Baroness has sent me runs to three closely typed pages. Even so, I have to say that, as an explanatory note, it is not a great help. For example, the explanatory note says at one point that regulation 8 substitutes regulation 47 of the principle regulations (direct payment of class 1A contributions). As an explanatory note, I defy anyone to understand what on earth that means and, if we are going to have explanatory notes—and they can sometimes be very useful—simply referring to other legislation without

613
actually saying what the principle legislation does is such-and-such and this does something else is really not very helpful.
None the less, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for this and no doubt she will tell us that they are now prepared to accept the amendment which we have in front of us this evening, at any rate in principle.
The other aspect which, even at this time of night, is worth raising is that Amendment No. 188 states:
"Nothing in this section shall apply to any healthcare provision by the employer, which shall be exempt from Class 1A contributions".
We are saying, as regards whether something taxable must be NIC-able, that if it is not so in the case of childcare it should not be so in the case of healthcare.
In replying to this matter in Committee in another place, the Minister, Mr Rooker, said that of that £225 million which this stealth tax will raise—and he seems to think that a stealth tax is something which people dealing with this kind of legislation understand, rather than that the public at large do not understand—£17 million which is raised as a result of not exempting healthcare provision by an employer will go to the National Health Service.
In answer to an intervention by Mr Pickles, who asked whether that is extra money, Mr Rooker replied that of course it is extra; it is 17 million new income. It is true that it is £17 million new income but I have looked in vain to discover where that national health provision has been increased by £17 million. I do not believe that it has but no doubt if I am wrong the noble Baroness will tell me where that extra £17 million for the National Health Service, which is to result from the Government coming into that money by not exempting healthcare provisions from NICs, is going to turn up. I do not believe that it does and I look forward to hearing from the noble Baroness where it is to be found. I beg to move.
11.30 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: On these Benches, we start from the proposition that the tax base for NICs should be the same as the tax base for Schedule E income tax. If that is not the case, as past history has shown, there is a real chance of tax avoidance through the use of devices some of which, like payment in gold bars, are completely absurd and indefensible. Some, like the use of company cars, may originally have had some justification but have reached the level at which they distorted the economy and basically, people were being forced to take company cars whether they needed them or not simply because it was a more tax-efficient way of paying income.
Therefore, in any case the test must be that there should be a presumption against exempting from NICs anything which is taxable for Schedule E.
Against those tests, Amendment No. 187 has some justification. It is extremely difficult to see any justification for Amendment No. 188. The special position as regards childcare has already been
614
recognised to some extent by virtue of the fact that in-house childcare facilities provided by an employer for employees are not taxable. The value of the childcare provided is not taxable under Schedule E and, therefore, it would be logically indefensible to make that subject to NICs.
Of course, a great deal of childcare is provided outside the employer's property and much of it in a way where the cost of it must come out of taxed income. Nevertheless, childcare is in a special position because, of course, it is impossible for many people, particularly women with children, to take employment at all unless childcare has been provided. That has been recognised by the extremely generous childcare allowances which are provided in the working families' tax credit. Therefore, I understand entirely, and indeed would support, the principle behind Amendment No. 187.
Amendment No. 188 seems to be in a different position. After all, there is such a thing as the National Health Service. Many businesses provide payment of subscription to private health providers as part of the employment package. There is nothing wrong with that and in many cases it is in the interests of the business to do so because it ensures that key employees are able to get treatment at times most suitable to the employer.
I speak as the father of a son who recently suffered a serious knee injury playing football. Luckily the cost of his treatment was met through the private health insurance taken out by his employer. He was able to get immediate treatment at a time that suited both him and his employer.
Nevertheless, it seems that if that is part of the employment package provided by an employer for the employee, it is difficult to see why the employer should not be required to pay Class 1A contributions, given that it is recognised by the Government that it would not be sensible to take the further step of going the whole hog and making these subject fully to Class I contributions. Therefore, while we support Amendment No. 187, we are unable to support Amendment No. 188.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: That was such a comprehensive speech and as I believe that I agree with every word of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, I almost wonder whether I need to reply to him. Perhaps I had better not just say, "Ditto, ditto".
Lord Higgins: In that context, what view does the noble Baroness hold about a company providing flu injections, given the crisis in the health service last year?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I do not have a view on that at the moment. I am sure that when I contemplate it, I shall have a view and I shall then be delighted to share it with the noble Lord, Lord Higgins.
Clause 73 is a further step towards the alignment of tax and national insurance contributions (NICs). The clause provides for the extension of Class 1A NICs—

615
the shorthand commonly used for national insurance contributions—to cover, from April 2000, benefits in kind such as private health insurance, beneficial loans or use of a company yacht. It means that in future employers will pay NICs on all benefits in kind that they provide which are subject to income tax. The Class 1A NICs charge will be based on the taxable value of the benefit in kind, so that there is parity of treatment between cash and non-cash earnings.
That change, announced by the Chancellor in his 1999 Budget, was recommended by Martin Taylor in his report The Modernisation of Britain's Tax and Benefit System. As we have heard, the Opposition's amendments aim to remove two types of benefits from liability to Class 1A NICs: childcare benefit and the provision of private medical insurance.
First, I shall deal with Amendment No. 187 where there is little difference in the Committee in terms of the desired outcome. This March, in the Budget, the Chancellor announced one exception to the simple rule that what is taxable is also NIC-able. He said that, to encourage employers to provide childcare to help their employees, Class 1A NICs will not be charged on the value of any in kind childcare arranged by the employer. That will, of course, be 'welcomed by employees. It will not involve the employer in any greater effort than recording the value of the provided childcare in a different box on the P11D form with which they are familiar.
That has been done to encourage employers to help employees with children by providing more childcare facilities. Having been heavily involved in the WFTC Bill, it is quite clear that apart from getting an immediate family relative to care for a child, the childcare most favoured by people moving into the labour market is workplace nurseries, or employer-funded childcare of the sort that is congruent with the person's working hours.
Employers who organise places in commercial nurseries, arrange for a childminder, provide a workplace nursery or provide childcare vouchers will not pay Class 1A NICs. As the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said, that precisely fits the working families' tax credit scheme.
In spirit, therefore, Amendment No. 187 is the same as the Chancellor's announcement. We appear to differ only on the best way to deliver the necessary legislation. We believe it is preferable to set out the definition of childcare in regulations so that everyone is clear what is and what is not covered.
The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, knows well that it is traditional in relation to the NICs scheme for the primary legislation to be rather wide, but encompassing regulation-making powers. The details are properly set out in regulations. The Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee recognised that in relation to the provisions in this Bill. The detail can then be amended if need be without unnecessarily taking up parliamentary time as to the type of childcare and so forth. Amendment No. 187 is therefore unnecessary. If we have not already done so, we will send a copy of the regulations to Members of the Committee indicating to what they apply.
616
However, like the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, the same argument does not apply to Amendment No. 188. At the core, childcare removes a barrier to work; private healthcare is part of the remuneration for work. That is the distinction the Government draw. I am sure it is one that the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, understands. Excluding private healthcare from Class 1A would undermine one of the main purposes of introducing Class 1A NICs; that is, to bring closer together the NICs' treatment of cash and non-cash earnings. The speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, both tonight and at Second Reading, was exactly right when he said treating some form of perks as NIC-free distorts the system of wages and salaries. The extension of Class 1A will reduce that distortion.
I also agree strongly with the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, that there is a significant difference between the two amendments. As I say, childcare is provided to remove obstacles; to help employees with children cope with work and family responsibilities, whereas private healthcare is regarded as part of the remuneration.
Lord Higgins: I wonder if I may pursue a point to which the noble Baroness did not give an answer earlier. Does she think that flu injections given by a company ought to be chargeable to NICs on that company, given the clear beneficial effect and reduction in the cost to the National Health Service which would have resulted had flu been more widespread last winter? Would it not be a good idea to encourage that and not to penalise it in the future?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I hope to receive some advice which I can share with the noble Lord in a moment or two. It is only large firms that can afford to offer their employees many and various benefits in kind. Rather than subsidise those large firms at the expense of small firms and their employees by minimising NICs they pay on benefits they provide, we prefer the level playing field approach and at the same time putting more money into the NHS where it is most needed.
Members of the Committee may not be aware that NICs are equal to 0.9 per cent of the value of all benefits subject to Class 1A NICs, and that percentage will go towards funding the NHS. In other words, in response to an earlier question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, that £17 million extra is the statutory percentage of each NICs class passed to the NHS. So it is not a question as to how the NHS is going to spend it; it is simply part of the tithing of the NICs percentage that goes direct to the NHS.
Lord Higgins: It may be more convenient for me to interrupt the noble Baroness. Where does that extra £17 million appear in the Government's provision for the National Health Service? The crucial question is whether the £17 million is extra for the National Health Service. Where does it appear in the government accounts that we are going to spend an extra £17 million on the National Health Service? Does the noble Lord wish to intervene?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I merely wish to say that that is a different Bill. We will deal with the Government resource Bill in due course.
Lord Higgins: With respect to the noble Lord, it is not a different Bill. The matter came up at Committee stage in another place and we were assured that it was an extra £17 million. I was simply saying, as I said earlier, that I do not believe that that is so.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: As I understand it, and if I am wrong of course I shall write to the noble Lord, whenever the NICs scheme is altered and more revenue is raised as a result of these measures, a statutory percentage of that 0.9 per cent passes to the NHS, neither more nor less; that represents £17 million in this case and therefore that goes across. That is my understanding of the situation but, if I have misled the noble Lord, I shall of course write to him.
The noble Lord also asked whether flu jabs were taxable and therefore NIC-able. They are indeed taxable, and therefore NIC-able. Such small amounts, however, are usually wrapped up by the firm in a PAYE settlement agreement, which is therefore to the mutual convenience of all concerned.
The costs have been detailed in the regulatory impact assessment; it falls only on employers; it is about the alignment of taxes and NICs, the alignment of cash and non-cash benefits, and greater fairness between big and small firms, with no obvious financial gain to the Treasury. I hope that, for all of those reasons, and above all because one should not be distorting the system by seeking to evade proper NICs and taxable payments by going through the benefits-in-kind route, the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
11.45 p.m.
Lord Higgins: As the Government propose to implement what my amendment does by way of a statutory instrument, then of course I am prepared to withdraw it. I have sympathy for those members of the Labour Party who were forced to go through the division lobbies to the contrary effect only a short time ago.
As far as the second amendment is concerned, I look forward to seeing what information the noble Baroness manages to ascertain with regard to the question of the National Health Service.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 188 to 191 not moved.]
Lord Higginsmoved Amendment No. 192:
Page 76, line 26, leave out ("with 6th April 2000") and insert ("on 6th April of the year after the date of commencement of this Act, or, if this Act comes into force on various dates, the earliest of those dates.").
The noble Lord said: This is the final amendment we are debating this evening. It refers to the question of timing.
618
Effectively, it seeks to amend the clause on page 76 of the Bill which suggests that all these changes in National Insurance contributions shall come into effect with effect from 6th April 2000. In other words, it is a piece of retrospective legislation.
I am not sure to what extent anyone was informed in advance that this was going to be the case. It would seem more reasonable, however, not to backdate it and make it retrospective but to ensure that it happens next April rather than at the present time, and indeed for some weeks past. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The clause fulfils the 1999 Budget commitment to introduce an employer's NICs charge on all taxable benefits in kind from 6th April 2000. As Royal Assent to the Bill will be after that date, introduction of the charge will be backdated to 6th April. These amendments would prevent that from happening. It would be necessary to postpone the implementation of the extended Class 1A NICs scheme for a year.
Benefits provided from 6th April this year will attract a Class 1A NICs charge, which will be due to be paid to the Revenue by 19 July 2001. We do not believe that this will cause problems for employers. They were all sent the guidance booklet, enabling preparation for the change to be made.
To delay implementation now would mean that all the preparatory work already done by employers would be wasted and there would be confusion over the date the provisions take effect. Many of the details of the Class 1A charge, particularly the emoluments exempted from liability, will be in regulations, so they must also become operative from the beginning of the tax year.
Is that enough for the noble Lord? I can continue with the answer but, given that employers are expecting to operate this scheme, we see no virtue in changing the dates.
Lord Higgins: I have one simple question. Is it the case that they may already have prepared or indeed submitted their payroll returns and will now have to alter them?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am assured that that is not the case.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 193 not moved.]
Clause 73 agreed to.
Clauses 74 and 75 agreed to.
Baroness Hollis of Heighammoved Amendment No. 193A:
After Clause 75, insert the following new clause—
LIABILITY OF EARNER FOR SECONDARY CONTRIBUTIONS: GREAT BRITAIN
"( .—(1) In paragraph 3 of Schedule I to the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 (prohibition on deduction or recovery of Class 1 contributions), sub-paragraph (2) shall be omitted.

619
(2) After that paragraph there shall be inserted—
"Prohibition on recovery of employer's contributions
3A.—(1) Subject to sub-paragraph (2) below, a person who is or has been liable to pay any secondary Class 1 or any Class 1A or Class 1B contributions shall not—

(a) make, from earnings paid by him, any deduction in respect of any such contributions for which he or any other person is or has been liable;

(b) otherwise recover any such contributions (directly or indirectly) from any person who is or has been a relevant earner; or

(c) enter into any agreement with any person for the making of any such deduction or otherwise for the purpose of so recovering any such contributions.

(2) Sub-paragraph (1) above does not apply to the extent that an agreement between—

(a) a secondary contributor, and

(b) any person ('the earner') in relation to whom the secondary contributor is, was or will be such a contributor in respect of the contributions to which the agreement relates,

allows the secondary contributor to recover (whether by deduction or otherwise) the whole or any part of any secondary Class 1 contribution payable in respect of a gain that is treated as remuneration derived from that earner's employment by virtue of section 4(4)(a) above.
(3) Sub-paragraph (2) above does not authorise any recovery (whether by deduction or otherwise)—

(a) in pursuance of any agreement entered into before 19th May 2000; or

(b) in respect of any liability to a contribution arising before the day of the passing of the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act 2000.

(4) In this paragraph —
'agreement' includes any arrangement or understanding (whether or not legally enforceable); and
'relevant earner', in relation to a person who is or has been liable to pay any contributions, means an earner in respect of whom he is or has been so liable.
Transfer of liability to be borne by earner
3B.—(1) This paragraph applies where—

(a) an election is jointly made by—

(i) a secondary contributor, and

(ii) a person ('the earner') in relation to whom the secondary contributor is or will be such a contributor in respect of contributions on share option gains by the earner,

for the whole or a part of any liability of the secondary contributor to contributions on any such gains to be transferred to the earner; and
(b) the election is one in respect of which the Inland Revenue have, before it was made, given by notice to the secondary contributor their approval to both—

(i) the form of the election; and

(ii) the arrangements made in relation to the proposed election for securing that liability transferred by the election will be met.

(2) Any liability which—

(a) arises while the election is in force, and

(b) is a liability to pay the contributions on share option gains by the earner, or the part of them, to which the election relates,

shall be treated for the purposes of this Act, the Administration Act and Part II of the Social Security Contributions (Transfer of Functions, etc.) Act 1999 as a liability falling on the earner, instead of on the secondary contributor.
620
(3) Subject to sub-paragraph (7)(b) below, an election made for the purposes of sub-paragraph (1) above shall continue in force from the time when it is made until whichever of the following first occurs, namely—

(a) it ceases to have effect in accordance with its terms;

(b) it is revoked jointly by both parties to the election;

(c) notice is given to the earner by the secondary contributor terminating the effect of the election.

(4) An approval given to the secondary contributor for the purposes of sub-paragraph (1)(b) above may be given either—

(a) for an election to be made by the secondary contributor and a particular person; or

(b) for all elections to be made, or to be made in particular circumstances, by the secondary contributor and particular persons or by the secondary contributor and persons of a particular description.

(5) The grounds on which the Inland Revenue shall be entitled to refuse an approval for the purposes of sub-paragraph (1)(b) above shall include each of the following—

(a) that it appears to the Inland Revenue that adequate arrangements have not been made for securing that the liabilities transferred by the proposed election or elections will be met by the person or persons to whom it would be so transferred; and

(b) that it appears to the Inland Revenue that they do not have sufficient information to determine whether or not grounds falling within paragraph (a) above exist.

(6) If, at any time after they have given an approval for the purposes of sub-paragraph (1)(b) above, it appears to the Inland Revenue—

(a) that the arrangements that were made or are in force for securing that liabilities transferred by elections to which the approval relates are met are proving inadequate or unsatisfactory in any respect, or

(b) that any election to which the approval relates has resulted, or is likely to result, in the avoidance or nonpayment of the whole or any part of any secondary Class I contributions,

the Inland Revenue may withdraw the approval by notice to the secondary contributor.
(7) The withdrawal by the Inland Revenue of any approval given for the purposes of sub-paragraph (1)(b) above—

(a) may be either general or confined to a particular election or to particular elections; and

(b) shall have the effect that the election to which the withdrawal relates has no effect on contributions on share option gains in respect of any right to acquire shares obtained after—

(i) the date on which notice of the withdrawal of the approval is given, or

(ii) such later date as the Inland revenue may specify in that notice.

(8) Where the Inland Revenue have refused or withdrawn their approval for the purposes of sub-paragraph (1)(b) above, the person who applied for it or, as the case may be, to whom it was given may appeal to the Special Commissioners against the Inland Revenue's decision.
(9) On an appeal under sub-paragraph (8) above the Special Commissioners may—

(a) dismiss the appeal;

(b) remit the decision appealed against to the Inland Revenue with a direction to make such decision as the Special Commissioners think fit; or

(c) in the case of a decision to withdraw an approval, quash that decision and direct that that decision is to be treated as never having been made.

621
(10) Subject to sub-paragraph (12) below, an election under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not apply to any contributions in respect of gains realised before it was made.
(11) Regulations made by the Inland Revenue may make provision with respect to the making of elections for the purposes of this paragraph and the giving of approvals for the purposes of sub-paragraph (1)(b) above; and any such regulations may, in particular—

(a) prescribe the matters that must be contained in such an election;

(b) provide for the manner in which such an election is to be capable of being made and of being confined to particular liabilities or the part of particular liabilities; and

(c) provide for the making of applications for such approvals and for the manner in which those applications are to be dealt with.

(12) Where—

(a) an election is made under this paragraph before the end of the period of three months beginning with the date of the passing of the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act 2000, and

(b) that election is expressed to relate to liabilities for contributions arising on or after 19th May 2000 and before the making of the election,

this paragraph shall have effect in relation to those liabilities as if sub-paragraph (2) above provided for them to be deemed to have fallen on the earner (instead of on the secondary contributor); and the secondary contributor shall accordingly be entitled to reimbursement from the earner for any payment made by that contributor in or towards the discharge of any of those liabilities.
(13) In this paragraph references to contributions on share option gains by the earner are references to any secondary Class 1 contributions payable in respect of a gain that is treated as remuneration derived from the earner's employment by virtue of section 4(4)(a) above.
(14) In this paragraph 'the Special Commissioners' means the Commissioners for the special purposes of the Income Tax Acts."
(3) In section 6(4) of that Act (persons by whom Class 1 contributions are payable), for the words from "paragraph 3" onwards there shall be substituted "paragraphs 3 to 3B of Schedule 1 to this Act."
(4) In paragraph 8(1) of Schedule 1 to that Act (general regulations), after paragraph (c) there shall be inserted—
"(ca) for requiring a secondary contributor to notify a person to whom any of his liabilities are transferred by an election under paragraph 3B above of—

(i) any transferred liability that arises;

(ii) the amount of any transferred liability that arises; and

(iii) the contents of any notice of withdrawal by the Inland Revenue of any approval that relates to that election;".

(5) In section 8(1) of the Social Security Contributions (Transfer of Functions, etc.) Act 1999 (decisions to be taken by officers of the Inland Revenue), after paragraph (i) there shall be inserted—
"(ia) to decide whether to give or withdraw an approval for the purposes of paragraph 3B(1)(b) of Schedule 1 to the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992;".
(6) In section 10 of that Act of 1999 (regulations about varying or superseding decisions), at the beginning of subsection (1) there shall be inserted "Subject to subsection (2A) below.", and after subsection (2) there shall be inserted—
"(2A) The decisions in relation to which provision may be made by regulations under this section shall not include decisions falling within section 8(1)(ia) above."
622
(7) In section 12(4) of that Act of 1999 (appeals to be heard by General Commissioners), after "Subject to" there shall be inserted "paragraph 3B(8) of Schedule 1 to the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 (which provides for appeals under that paragraph to be heard by the Special Commissioners), to".").
The noble Baroness said: I would like to move Amendment No. 193A and speak also to Amendment Nos. 198ZA, 200A, 200B and 202A.
I deeply regret and would like to apologise to the House for the lateness of tabling this amendment. As a Government, we have tried not only to reduce the total number of amendments tabled but, where they have been tabled, to do so well in advance or at all stages of Committee, so I very much regret that it should be at such late notice.
Noble Lords may be aware that, following the Chancellor's Budget statement, the Financial Secretary has been engaged in a period of consultation with employers to provide a technical solution to a problem that has arisen in relation to National Insurance contributions on share option gains—
Lord Higgins: I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but could she just repeat the numbers in this grouping? She very courteously sent me a note on this group of amendments, but I understood that she was going to move amendments on Report.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: No. I am moving Amendment No. 193A and speaking to Amendments Nos. 198ZA, 200A, 200B and 203. The Government have given an undertaking as far as they can not to introduce new material on Report which, therefore, is not available for full discussion. That is why I consulted noble Lords as much as I could over the weekend. I contacted the noble Lords, Lord Astor and Lord Goodhart, and said that I was very sorry that we were tabling such amendments late. I apologised for that fact but I thought that, on balance—and bearing in mind that these measures are welcomed by industry—it was more helpful to noble Lords to table them for tonight to enable discussion to take place, rather than leave them to the Report stage.
Obviously, I tried to reach the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, over the weekend. I am sure it was my fault that I was unable to do so. However, perhaps I may suggest to him that he allows me to move and to speak to those amendments. I hope that the noble Lord will not be unhappy about any aspects of them but, if he is, I shall be more than happy to set up a meeting with officials to enable him and the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, to discuss the implications of the amendments in greater detail. Thereafter, if the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, wishes to return to the matter by tabling clarifying amendments, so to speak, on Report, he will be entitled to do so. Can I suggest that to the noble Lord as the possible way forward?
Lord Higgins: I do not want to delay the Committee at this late hour and I am happy to ensure that legislation is dealt with appropriately. The very courteous message that I received from the noble

623
Baroness provided me with information on these clauses, but my clear understanding was that they would be moved on Report. I was a little surprised by what has just happened. As of this morning, the grouping information that I received did not appear to include these clauses. It was obviously remiss of me. I should have realised that they had subsequently been tabled. But I am not sure when they were tabled.
As I say, I do not want to make a great fuss about this. It is simply that we were rather taken by surprise because the Minister is not doing what we understood she said she was going to do.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: In the letter that I faxed through to the noble Lords, Lord Astor and Lord Goodhart, I asked whether they wished to see the amendments at that time, and said:
"I very much regret that these amendments were tabled at such short notice, but I thought that this was preferable to delaying tabling the amendments until Report".
I wonder whether—
Lord Astor of Hever: There may have been a breakdown in communication here. I had understood that the amendments would be tabled but that the debate would take place on Report. I also understood that the Minister would provide officials to brief us between now and that time, with the general debate taking place at Report stage. That was the tenor of our discussion on the telephone.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: If I was going to table them on Report, they would not normally have been tabled at this stage. Indeed, I would not have been running around during the weekend telling noble Lords that I was tabling these amendments. I did so because we were doing precisely what we had sought not to do; namely, tabling amendments at quite short notice. I was very anxious that noble Lords should have the benefit of that information. I certainly sent the identical letter to both the noble Lord, Lord Astor, and the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. Obviously, I tried to reach the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, but through no error on either side—he was perfectly entitled to be away—I was unable to reach him. I give way.
Lord Goodhart: I am grateful to the Minister. From my point of view, although I had not thought about this in very great detail, I should say that my assumption was that if these amendments were to be tabled today, they would, in accordance with normal practice, also be moved today. That was my assumption.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: As I say, it is the Government's fault, so to speak, that these amendments are tabled so late. I do not like that situation. However, I hope that the noble Lord will allow me to explain the amendments. As I say, I am happy to offer the noble Lord a meeting with officials to discuss matters. He may return to the matter at Report stage with amendments either to clarify or to seek to amend the Government's proposals.
624
I say in my defence that employers are pressing us on this matter. I believe that the measure is broadly regarded as entirely benign. Therefore I hope that the Committee will allow me to cut corners, so to speak, on introducing it tonight.
Lord Higgins: I am perfectly content for the noble Baroness to proceed as she has suggested. If she wishes to proceed with her explanation now, that is fine. We shall then consider the matter further at Report stage.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am grateful to the noble Lord for those comments. At least I can now "bank", so to speak, the sketch of what we propose to do.
Since 6th April 1999, gains made by employees when they exercise share options granted after 5th April 1999 are subject to Class 1 NICs, unless the share options are awarded and exercised under an Inland Revenue approved scheme or the shares acquired are not readily convertible into cash.
The Committee may be aware that under accountancy rules companies are required to make a provision in their accounts for the anticipated NICs liability on share options based on the market price of the shares on the date that they prepare the accounts.
Many companies have informed us that while they can plan for NICs on regular pay, it is more difficult for them to plan for NICs on share option gains, particularly where the share price is volatile, as it is in the high growth sector of the economy, such as the new Internet companies. The exposure to so unpredictable a NICs liability could put at risk these companies' investment strategies and even make some companies technically insolvent. The unpredictability of accounting provisions is a severe worry to employers. As a result, a number of these companies are now questioning their investment plans for the UK and have told us that they might consider moving jobs elsewhere.
Class 1 NICs consist of a primary contribution, which is payable by the employee and a secondary contribution which is payable by the secondary contributor, which, in most circumstances, is the employer. Current social security legislation provides a statutory bar to prevent employers from recovering any part of their secondary Class 1 liability from the employee. This amendment strengthens that protection for the employee but at the same time introduces an exception for NICs arising on share option gains.
The amendment does three things. First, it allows employers and employees to reach an agreement that a secondary contributor (usually the employer) may recover some or all of the secondary NICs in respect of rights to acquire shares from the employee. Secondly, and as an alternative, the employer may make an application for approval of an election to the Board of the Inland Revenue. If approval is obtained, the employer and employee can jointly elect to transfer all or some of the liability to pay the secondary NICs on the share option gain to the employee. Elections can be

625
made only after the Inland Revenue has given its approval to the form of the election and the accompanying arrangements for securing that the NICs liability transferred to the employee is paid.
We shall introduce the ability to transfer the liability to the employee to overcome accounting difficulties for companies that report in the United States which would otherwise arise if the employer simply recovered the NICs. This flexibility has been provided in response to requests made to us during the consultation period.
Thirdly, the proposed amendment strengthens the existing statutory bar that prevents the employer recovering any part of the secondary NIC in respect of all forms of earnings (subject to the new exception for share options). It extends protection to the employee by ensuring that the person liable to pay the Class 1A NICs (on benefits in kind) or Class 1B (on pay-as-you-earn settlement agreements) cannot recover his liability from the employee.
I emphasise that this amendment seeks to put in place a solution that a number of companies have requested and we are meeting those requests. I should also add that the Government have consulted widely on the solution and it is clear that many of the companies that we have spoken to will welcome it. I can assure the Committee that the employer may only transfer or recover his liability from the employee if the employee so agrees.
The merits of the solution are such that it completely eliminates the unpredictability of the charge to the company and it moves the liability to the person with funds to pay for it. We believe that it is needed to attract business and jobs to the UK and to help UK companies compete in the global market. It goes towards meeting the Government's aim of a fairer national insurance system by ensuring that NICs are paid on share options and not treated more favourably than other kinds of remuneration.
As I said, I am very happy to expand on that to Members of the Committee, either by letter or by meeting. Given that explanation, I hope that the Committee will accept this measure and these amendments. I beg to move.
Midnight
Lord Higgins: It is helpful to have that on the record. No doubt we shall wish to consider the matter between now and Report stage. A number of thoughts immediately occur to one—for example, does the Revenue refund the money if the share option goes, in the jargon, under water? However, I leave that to another occasion. We appreciate what the Minister has said.
Lord Goodhart: Who are we to interfere in an agreement reached between the Government and employers? I can see the problem outlined by the Minister. I am prepared to give her the benefit of the doubt that this is the right way of dealing with it. The legislation is extremely complex and quite impossible
626
to take on board in the time available to do so. No doubt if there are problems, we shall be briefed before Report stage by those who have an interest in making changes to the legislation.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 76 [Contributions in respect of benefits in kind: Northern Ireland]:
[Amendments Nos. 194 to 198 not moved.]
Clause 76 agreed to.
Clauses 77 and 78 agreed to.
Baroness Hollis of Heighammoved Amendment No. 198ZA:
Insert the following new clause—
LIABILITY OF EARNER FOR SECONDARY CONTRIBUTIONS: NORTHERN IRELAND
(" .—(1) In paragraph 3 of Schedule 1 to the Social Security Contributions and Benefits (Northern Ireland) Act 1992 (prohibition on deduction or recovery of Class 1 contributions), sub-paragraph (2) shall be omitted.
(2) After that paragraph there shall be inserted—
"Prohibition on recovery of employer's contributions
3A.—(1) Subject to sub-paragraph (2) below, a person who is or has been liable to pay any secondary Class 1 or any Class 1A or Class 1B contributions shall not—

(a) make, from earnings paid by him, any deduction in respect of any such contributions for which he or any other person is or has been liable;

(b) otherwise recover any such contributions (directly or indirectly) from any person who is or has been a relevant earner; or

(c) enter into any agreement with any person for the making of any such deduction or otherwise for the purpose of so recovering any such contributions.

(2) Sub-paragraph (1) above does not apply to the extent that an agreement between—

(a) a secondary contributor, and

(b) any person ('the earner') in relation to whom the secondary contributor is, was or will be such a contributor in respect of the contributions to which the agreement relates,

allows the secondary contributor to recover (whether by deduction or otherwise) the whole or any part of any secondary Class 1 contribution payable in respect of a gain that is treated as remuneration derived from that earner's employment by virtue of section 4(4)(a) above.
(3) Sub-paragraph (2) above does not authorise any recovery (whether by deduction or otherwise)—

(a) in pursuance of any agreement entered into before 19th May 2000: or

(b) in respect of any liability to a contribution arising before the day of the passing of the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act 2000.

(4) In this paragraph—
'agreement' includes any arrangement or understanding (whether or not legally enforceable); and
'relevant earner', in relation to a person who is or has been liable to pay any contributions, means an earner in respect of whom he is or has been so liable.

627
Transfer olliahility to he borne by earner
3B.—(1) This paragraph applies where—

(a) an election is jointly made by—

(i) a secondary contributor, and

(ii) a person ('the earner') in relation to whom the secondary contributor is or will be such a contributor in respect of contributions on share option gains by the earner,

for the whole or a part of any liability of the secondary contributor to contributions on any such gains to be transferred to the earner; and
(b) the election is one in respect of which the Inland Revenue have, before it was made, given by notice to the secondary contributor their approval to both—

(i) the form of the election; and

(ii) the arrangements made in relation to the proposed election for securing that liability transferred by the election will be met.

(2) Any liability which——

(a) arises while the election is in force, and

(b) is a liability to pay the contributions on share option gains by the earner, or the part of them, to which the election relates,

shall be treated for the purposes of this Act, the Administration Act and Part III of the Social Security Contributions (Transfer of Functions, etc.) (Northern Ireland) Order 1999 as a liability falling on the earner, instead of on the secondary contributor.
(3) Subject to sub-paragraph (7)(b) below, an election made for the purposes of sub-paragraph (1) above shall continue in force from the time when it is made until whichever of the following first occurs, namely—

(a) a ceases to have effect in accordance with its terms;

(b) it is revoked jointly by both parties to the election;

(c) notice is given to the earner by the secondary contributor terminating the effect of the election.

(4) An approval given to the secondary contributor for the purposes of sub-paragraph (1)(b) above may be given either—

(a) for an election to be made by the secondary contributor and a particular person; or

(b) for all elections to be made, or to be made in particular circumstances, by the secondary contributor and particular persons or by the secondary contributor and persons of a particular description.

(5) The grounds on which the Inland Revenue shall he entitled to refuse an approval for the purposes of sub-paragraph (1)(b) above shall include each of the following—

(a) that it appears to the Inland Revenue that adequate arrangements have not been made for securing that the liabilities transferred by the proposed election or elections will be met by the person or persons to whom it would be so transferred; and

(b) that it appears to the Inland Revenue that they do not have sufficient information to determine whether or not grounds falling within paragraph (a) above exist.

(6)If, at any time after they have given an approval for the purposes of sub-paragraph (1)(b) above, it appears to the Inland Revenue—

(a) that the arrangements that were made or are in force for securing that liabilities transferred by elections to which the approval relates are met are proving inadequate or unsatisfactory in any respect, or

(b) that any election to which the approval relates has resulted, or is likely to result, in the avoidance or nonpayment of the whole or any part of any secondary Class 1 contributions,

the Inland Revenue may withdraw the approval by notice to the secondary contributor.
628
(7) The withdrawal by the Inland Revenue of any approval given for the purposes of sub-paragraph (1)(b) above—

(a) may be either general or confined to a particular election or to particular elections; and

(b) shall have the effect that the election to which the withdrawal relates has no effect on contributions on share option gains in respect of any right to acquire shares obtained after—

(i) the date on which notice of the withdrawal of the approval is given, or

(ii) such later date as the Inland revenue may specify in that notice.

(8) Where the Inland Revenue have refused or withdrawn their approval for the purposes of sub-paragraph (1)(b) above, the person who applied for it or, as the case may be, to whom it was given may appeal to the Special Commissioners against the Inland Revenue's decision.
(9) On an appeal under sub-paragraph (8) above the Special Commissioners may—

(a) dismiss the appeal;

(b) remit the decision appealed against to the Inland Revenue with a direction to make such decision as the Special Commissioners think fit; or

(c) in the case of a decision to withdraw an approval, quash that decision and direct that that decision is to be treated as never having been made.

(10) Subject to sub-paragraph (12) below, an election under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not apply to any contributions in respect of gains realised before it was made.
(11) Regulations made by the Inland Revenue may make provision with respect to the making of elections for the purposes of this paragraph and the giving of approvals for the purposes of sub-paragraph (1)(b) above; and any such regulations may, in particular—

(a) prescribe the matters that must be contained in such an election;

(b) provide for the manner in which such an election is to he capable of being made and of being confined to particular liabilities or the part of particular liabilities: and

(c) provide for the making of applications for such approvals and for the manner in which those applications are to be dealt with.

(12) Where—

(a) an election is made under this paragraph before the end of the period of three months beginning with the date of the passing of the Child Support, Pensions and Social. Security Act 2000, and

(b) that election is expressed to relate to liabilities for contributions arising on or after 19th May 2000 and before the making of the election,

this paragraph shall have effect in relation to those liabilities as if sub-paragraph (2) above provided for them to be deemed to have fallen on the earner (instead of on the secondary contributor); and the secondary contributor shall accordingly be entitled to reimbursement from the earner for any payment made by that contributor in or towards the discharge of any of those liabilities.
(13) In this paragraph references to contributions on share option gains by the earner are references to any secondary Class 1 contributions payable in respect of a gain that is treated as remuneration derived from the earner's employment by virtue of section 4(4)(a) above.

629
(14) In this paragraph 'the Special Commissioners' means the Commissioners for the special purposes of the Income Tax Acts."
(3) In section 6(4) of that Act (persons by whom Class 1 contributions are payable), for the words from "paragraph 3" onwards there shall be substituted "paragraphs 3 to 3B of Schedule 1 to this Act."
(4) In paragraph 8(1) of Schedule 1 to that Act (general regulations), after paragraph (c) there shall be inserted—
"(ca) for requiring a secondary contributor to notify a person to whom any of his liabilities are transferred by an election under paragraph 3B above of—

(i) any transferred liability that arises;

(ii) the amount of any transferred liability that arises; and

(iii) the contents of any notice of withdrawal by the Inland Revenue of any approval that relates to that election:".

(5) In Article 7(1) of the Social Security Contributions (Transfer of Functions, etc.) (Northern Ireland) Order 1999 (decisions to be taken by officers of the Inland Revenue), after sub-paragraph (i) there shall be inserted—
"(ia) to decide whether to give or withdraw an approval for the purposes of paragraph 3B(1)(b) of Schedule 1 to the Contributions and Benefits Act:".
(6) In Article 9 of that Order (regulations about varying or superseding decisions), at the beginning of paragraph (1) there shall be inserted "Subject to paragraph (2A) below,", and after paragraph (2) there shall be inserted—
"(2A) The decisions in relation to which provision may be made by regulations under this Article shall not include decisions falling within Article 7(1)(ia) of this Order."
(7) In Article 11(4) of that Order (appeals to be heard by General Commissioners). after "Subject to" there shall be inserted "paragraph 3B(8) of Schedule 1 to the Contributions and Benefits Act (which provides for appeals under that paragraph to be heard by the Special Commissioners), to".").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clauses 81 and 82 agreed to.
Schedule 9 [Repeals and revocations]:
[Amendment Nos. 198A and 199 not moved.]
Baroness Hollis of Heighammoved Amendments Nos. 200 to 201:
Page 140, line 41, column 3, after ("170(5).") insert ("in the definition of "the relevant enactments".").
Page 147, line 8, column 3, at end insert—
("In Schedule 1, paragraph 3(2).")
Page 147, line 28, column 3, at end insert—
("In Schedule 1, paragraph 3(2).")
Page 148, line 30, at end insert—

("1998 c. 14.

The Social Security Act 1998.

In Schedule 7, paragraph 32.")

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 83 [Commencement and transitional provisions]:
[Amendment No. 202 not moved.]
Clause 83 agreed to.
Clause 84 [Short title and extent]:
Baroness Hollis of Heighammoved Amendment No. 203:
Page 88, line 14, leave out ("78") and insert ("Liability of earner for secondary contributions: Northern Ireland").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 84, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.
House adjourned at seven minutes past midnight.

  London Elections: Turnout
  London Elections: Turnout
  DVLA Advice
  DVLA Advice
  Special Vehicle Excise Duty: Mobile Cranes
  Special Vehicle Excise Duty: Mobile Cranes
  Access to Open Countryside: Impact
  Access to Open Countryside: Impact
  Telecommunications Masts
  Telecommunications Masts
  Water Directive: Effect on Whisky Industry
  Water Directive: Effect on Whisky Industry
  Incineration of Waste Directive: Animal Carcasses
  Incineration of Waste Directive: Animal Carcasses
  Constitution Hill: Memorial Gates
  Constitution Hill: Memorial Gates
  Northern Ireland: Intensive Care
  Northern Ireland: Intensive Care
  National Institute for Clinical Excellence: Northern Ireland Remit
  National Institute for Clinical Excellence: Northern Ireland Remit
  PDVN Access for Peers
  PDVN Access for Peers
  Immigration Services Commissioner
  Immigration Services Commissioner
  Police Negotiating Board and Police Advisory Board
  Police Negotiating Board and Police Advisory Board
  Home Detention Curfew Scheme: Reoffending
  Home Detention Curfew Scheme: Reoffending
  Kainos Trust
  Kainos Trust
  Community Sentences
  Community Sentences
  Spoilt Ballot Papers: Greater London
  Spoilt Ballot Papers: Greater London
  Lieutenant Governors of the Channel Islands
  Lieutenant Governors of the Channel Islands
  Mr Mike Tyson: Entry Clearance
  Mr Mike Tyson: Entry Clearance
  Immigration Rules: Paragraph 320(18)
  Immigration Rules: Paragraph 320(18)
  Prison Service: Key Performance Indicators
  Prison Service: Key Performance Indicators
  HM Prison Blantyre House
  HM Prison Blantyre House
  Detention of Kashmiri Leaders
  Detention of Kashmiri Leaders
  UK Membership of EEA
  UK Membership of EEA
  Austria: Refusal of Bilateral Discussions
  Austria: Refusal of Bilateral Discussions
  EU Directives and Legislation
  EU Directives and Legislation
  Governors' Salaries
  Governors' Salaries
  Zimbabwe: Alleged Arms Imports from Russia
  Zimbabwe: Alleged Arms Imports from Russia
  Tourism Staff Accommodation: Tax Position
  Tourism Staff Accommodation: Tax Position
  Tourism (Sleeping Accommodation Price Display) Order 1997
  Tourism (Sleeping Accommodation Price Display) Order 1997
  Tourism and Hospitality Contact Group
  Tourism and Hospitality Contact Group
  Tourism and Ethnic Diversity
  Tourism and Ethnic Diversity
  May Day Demonstrations: Protection of Monuments
  May Day Demonstrations: Protection of Monuments
  Goods Vehicles: Excise Duty
  Goods Vehicles: Excise Duty
  Committee on Standards in Public Life: Defamatory Evidence
  Committee on Standards in Public Life: Defamatory Evidence
  Human Rights Convention and Sub Judice Rule
  Human Rights Convention and Sub Judice Rule
  Reserve Forces' Gulf Service: Attributable Benefits
  Reserve Forces' Gulf Service: Attributable Benefits
  Pyridostigmine Bromide
  Pyridostigmine Bromide
  Gulf War: Biological Warfare Detection Unit
  Gulf War: Biological Warfare Detection Unit
  Nitrochemie: Ordnance Products
  Nitrochemie: Ordnance Products
  Joint Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Regiment
  Joint Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Regiment
  Spanish Veterinary Surgeons and the Meat Hygiene Service
  Spanish Veterinary Surgeons and the Meat Hygiene Service
  Variant CJD: Discarded Tonsil Samples
  Variant CJD: Discarded Tonsil Samples