Sitting of 6 November 2000

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

    GREENHAM AND CROOKHAM COMMONS BILL
    Ordered,
    That the promoters of the Greenham and Crookham Commons Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with it, if they think fit, in the next session of Parliament, provided that notice of their intention to do so is lodged in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present session and that all fees due up to that date have been paid;
    That on the fifth sitting day in the next session the bill shall be presented to the House by deposit in the Private Bill Office;
    That a declaration signed by the agent shall be annexed to the bill, stating that it is the same in every respect as the bill presented in this House in the present session;
    That on the next sitting day following presentation, the Clerk in the Private Bill Office shall lay the bill on the Table of the House;
    That in the next session the bill shall be deemed to have, passed through every stage through which it has passed in the present session, and shall be recorded in the Journal of the House as having passed those stages;
    That no further fees shall be charged to such stages;
    That all petitions relating to the bill which stand referred to the committee on the bill, shall stand referred to the committee on the bill in the next session;
    That no petitioners shall be heard before the committee unless their petition has been presented within the time provided for petitioning or has been deposited pursuant to Private Business Standing Order 126(b);
    2
    That, in relation to the bill, Private Business Standing Order 127 shall have effect as if the words "under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against bill)" were omitted.—[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]
    Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

Oral Answers to Questions
  CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

    Theatres (Market Towns)
    Mr. David Heath: What proposals he has to support theatre venues in market towns. [135336]
    The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Alan Howarth): This is a matter for the Arts Council of England—as the main funding body for the arts in England—in collaboration with the regional arts boards, to decide within the context of its current review of regional theatre. The Arts Council has already announced additional theatre funding from 2002–03 and decisions on how this will be distributed will be made in the near future.
    Mr. Heath: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that reply. I am thinking of the Merlin theatre in Frome, which is excellent but which failed, unfortunately, in a recent lottery bid. Does he agree that the lottery process is not necessarily the right way of providing for capital improvements to smaller theatre venues, precisely because it is a lottery? We need a mechanism to ensure

    3
    that funds are made available not only to the big—the regionally important—venues, but to those that provide an essential service to local people.
    Mr. Howarth: I would counsel the hon. Gentleman and his constituents who are involved with the Merlin theatre and arts centre not to despair of the lottery. I appreciate the disappointment felt by Merlin when it was unsuccessful in the previous lottery application to the Arts Council. I know that the South-West Arts Board tried to give helpful advice, and I understand that Merlin is putting together a new bid to South-West Arts—that organisation now has more resources to distribute under the regional arts lottery project. I wish Merlin well in that application. Of course, from 2002, the Arts Council and the regional arts boards will be able to start to use the extra £25 million revenue funding—the huge increase that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has provided for theatre.
    Dr. Phyllis Starkey: Will my hon. Friend consider visiting the new theatre at Milton Keynes? Within a year of opening, it is achieving 85 per cent. occupancy and is a splendid example of the use of public money in extending regional theatre. Will he spread the lessons to be learned from the Milton Keynes theatre to other less successful regional theatre venues?
    Mr. Howarth: It would give me nothing but pleasure to accept my hon. Friend's invitation. I greatly look forward to having the opportunity to visit Milton Keynes. I am sure that the lessons that can be learned from the success of that project will be eagerly followed by others elsewhere, as she suggests.

    Digital Television
    Miss Anne Begg: What action he is taking to promote the take-up of digital television. [135337]
    The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Janet Anderson): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on 31 October that we have been working closely with broadcasters, manufacturers, retailers and consumer groups to ensure that viewers get accurate and sensible information. A set of clear and simple messages has been agreed and will be used to promote and encourage take-up.
    Miss Begg: Does my hon. Friend agree that internet access is an important part of digital television? Hopefully, it offers a mechanism to ensure that there will be a narrowing between the information haves and have-nots. Will she ensure that internet access forms part of the standard digital package on offer to consumers?
    Janet Anderson: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. She will be aware that the Government are most anxious to ensure universal access to the internet and also to ensure that we do not end up with an information-rich/information-poor society. Currently, we know that one in five homes already have digital television, which,
    4
    of course, gives them access to the internet. Perhaps most interestingly, 50 per cent. of homes where there are children have digital television.
    However, the Government continue to monitor the situation closely. We have set up a viewers panel, which will meet for the first time at the end of November. We shall certainly take into consideration the point raised by my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Michael Fabricant: The hon. Lady will be aware that the United States has set an analogue switch-off date of 2006, while Italy and Germany have set a clear date of 2010. Does she agree that her conditional date for analogue switch-off will not encourage the growth of digital technology in this country? Furthermore, is she aware that the provision of internet television cannot be a reality until we have broad band throughout the United Kingdom? We certainly do not have that at present.
    Janet Anderson: I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you and the House will bear with me if I set out our proposals for analogue switch-over. The matter is very important to us all.
    As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, we have set out two crucial tests that must be met before the analogue signal is fully switched to digital: availability and affordability. Under the availability test, almost all viewers who can currently receive analogue television must be able to receive the main free-to-air channels digitally. Under the affordability test, consumers must not face unacceptable switching costs when converting to digital services for either their televisions or their video recorders.
    As I said in response to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg), we have set up a viewers panel constantly to review the position. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport set a target date between 2006 and 2010, and we will constantly keep it under review. However, the countries to which the hon. Gentleman referred are having second thoughts about the dates that they have set.
    Mr. Speaker: I call Mr. Rapson,
    Mr. Syd Rapson: My question has already been answered, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Peter Ainsworth: That was a very rare piece of honesty.
    Conservative Members will support any sensible measure to enhance the take-off of digital television, but is not the demand for news an important spur to the take-up of digital services? Has the Minister seen the article by John Kampfner, the former BBC political correspondent, in The Guardian today, in which he blows the whistle on the bullying tactics of Government spin doctors? I hope that the Minister will join me in condemning such tactics.
    Does the Minister think that it is part of the Government's remit in the digital age to tell broadcasters how to organise their news schedules? Does giving the green light to a major hike in the BBC licence fee to pay for digital services give Ministers the right to ordain

    5
    when programmes are transmitted? We know that the Government want to dictate the content of news bulletins. Do they also want to dictate when they are scheduled?
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: I think that the hon. Gentleman has been on uppers again.
    Janet Anderson: My hon. Friend is quite right.
    I never cease to be amazed by the way the hon. Gentleman tries to manoeuvre his current pet subject on to the back of a question that is not really about it. I shall however try to answer his points. The Government do not think that it is part of their remit to dictate what broadcasters should put in their news bulletins. However, it is perfectly reasonable and acceptable for individuals to express their views. As to the future of public service broadcasting, he will have to wait for the White Paper that will be published at the end of the year.

    Sports Coaching
    Dr. Stephen Ladyman: What steps he is taking to give schoolchildren greater access to qualified coaching in the major sports. [135338]
    The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): We announced earlier this year that we would double the funding available for the school sports co-ordinators programme. The additional £60 million that we are providing over the next three years means that the 1,000 co-ordinators whom we will have in place by 2004 will also have funding to buy in coaches and officials. High-quality coaching goes hand in hand with our desire to see more competitive sports played in schools and between schools and to give many more pupils the chance to play sport.
    Dr. Ladyman: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that, if we are to harness the talents and sporting enthusiasm of every child, we need more sports co-ordinators and fully qualified coaching staff in our schools as well as new and improved sporting facilities? Will he confirm that the money for the co-ordinators that he has just told us about will not be taken from the additional money announced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for extending school sports facilities?
    Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the importance of ensuring that good-quality coaching is available to pupils. One of the great tragedies of school sport in this country is the decline that came about as a result of the dispute that the previous Government had with teachers in the mid-1980s. We are now in the process of putting that right.
    I can indeed confirm to my hon. Friend that the revenue funding that we announced to double the schools sport co-ordinators programme is revenue from the Exchequer. It is not the same fund as the prospective lottery money that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced at the end of September. We will provide £750 million to improve school sport facilities from the new opportunities fund, and we are proud to propose today, in the consultation document that we have launched, that that
    6
    money should be spent. We asked Conservative Members whether or not they would cut that money if they came into government.
    Mr. Nick Hawkins: Although I welcome the Secretary of State's comments about improving sports coaching in schools, does he not recognise that the biggest decline in school sports came about because, for about 30 years, Labour spokesmen and Labour activists were against all competitive sport in schools? The Government are now trying to go two steps forward when he and his predecessors took us three steps back.
    Mr. Smith: No, I would not agree. The two major reasons for the decline of sport in our schools over the past 20 years are, first, the withdrawal of teachers from after-school sporting activity as a direct result of their dispute with the previous Government, and secondly, the previous Government's presiding over a bargain-basement sell-off of school playing fields.
    Mr. Bill O'Brien: Although the interest given to sports in schools is encouraging and, indeed, welcome, quality coaching in some sports is done away from school—I am thinking of swimming. I have constituents whose children are making a wonderful grade in swimming but need assistance. Can we have some advice on how such people can obtain specialist coaching away from school in sports that are part of the school curriculum?
    Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend raises an important point, which, together with Sport England, we are addressing. Swimming, along with games, gymnastics, dance, athletics and outdoor-adventure activities, is a national curriculum entitlement for school children at key stages 1 to 4. That means that those activities are a statutory part of the education of every child in this country. We must ensure that that education, training and coaching are as good as possible.
    Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: Does the Secretary of State agree that fitter children get better examination results? If he does, does he further agree that it is unacceptable that children aged between 11 and 16 receive on average only 20 minutes' physical activity a week? If he agrees that that is so, as statistics show, will he explain how in an already overcrowded national curriculum more time will be found for children to undertake physical activity?
    Mr. Smith: I certainly agree with the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question. Fitter children who engage in sport undoubtedly perform better in their academic work. That has been proved by study after study. Engaging in sport also makes children healthier and, incidentally, helps to curb anti-social behaviour. That is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment and I are determined to increase the amount of sporting activity available to children, both within the curriculum and after school and at weekends. Both are important objectives. The school sports co-ordinators programme that we are implementing will help to achieve them.

    Football Supporters' Trusts
    Mr. Andrew Love: How many mutual football supporters' trusts have been set up with the help of Supporters Direct. [135339]
    The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): Supporters Direct has assisted in the establishment of seven supporters' trusts to date, and has helped set up a further six trusts that are agreed in principle. Supporters Direct has received inquiries and requests for advice from groups representing supporters at a total of 85 football clubs in the FA premier league, in the football league and in non-league football. It is also in discussion with supporters' groups in other sports. That is not bad for two months' work.
    Mr. Love: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. One of the seven trusts that he mentioned is at my local club, Enfield Town, which has also elected a supporter-director to the board. The chairman recently called the trust unrepresentative, which I believe reflects its growing influence. Does my right hon. Friend agree that such a structure should be spread throughout sport? If he does, what measures will he take to publicise it further?
    Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend rightly points to the progress at Enfield. As he points out, not only has a supporters' trust been established but a supporter-director has been elected to the board. Most football clubs at which supporter-directors have been elected and supporters' trusts have been established have warmly welcomed the formal participation of supporters in the running of the club. I certainly hope that football clubs and, indeed, clubs in other sports will recognise that the direct involvement of supporters in the running, decision making and financing of their club is only to the clubs' benefit, because, after all, supporters are the lifeblood of a great football club.
    Mr. John Greenway: We welcome the right hon. Gentleman's news and we wonder whether he has also sought football supporters' views regarding the European Commission's attempt to invade our pitch by ruling that the football transfer system is illegal. Does he agree that supporters' loyalty to their football team applies equally to players, that fans are unhappy when good players leave, and that fans will lose the most if their team is impoverished or ceases to exist because the current system is scrapped? Does he agree with our Football Association, football league and premier league that any new transfer and contracts system must ensure that players honour their obligations, that opportunities to break contract are strictly prescribed, and that smaller clubs are properly compensated for the transfer of talented young players to bigger clubs?
    Mr. Smith: For once, I agree absolutely with everything the hon. Gentleman says. The matter is one that we have discussed with football authorities and supporters, as well as with our fellow European Governments. We believe that, although the current transfer system is by no means perfect, rewarding clubs for the investment that they make in players and ensuring
    8
    that money cascades down from larger, richer clubs to smaller, less wealthy clubs are important aspects of the system and values that we should try to retain.

    Millennium Dome
    Mr. John Wilkinson: What discussions he has had with local authorities in east London and the Greater London Authority about the future of the millennium dome. [135340]
    The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Janet Anderson): The matter is, of course, one for the competition team. Throughout the competition process, the competition team has involved and informed east London and Thames gateway organisations, including local authorities and community groups. Frequent consultation with the London borough of Greenwich has featured throughout the competition process. Following the withdrawal of Dome Europe from the competition process on 11 September, my noble and learned Friend Lord Falconer, sole shareholder of the New Millennium Experience Company, has met representatives of the London borough of Greenwich. The Greater London Authority and the London borough of Greenwich will be fully involved in any future planning application for the dome's future use.
    Mr. Wilkinson: I am grateful for that reply. Will the hon. Lady provide an assurance that, if the dome has to have recourse to yet more public money, not only will there be full consultation with the borough of Greenwich and the Greater London Authority, but Parliament will be fully informed in advance? Will she give a further assurance that, if a wind-up takes place and more public money is needed, she will come to the House and make clear how much is required? Furthermore, will her noble and learned Friend Lord Falconer do the honourable thing and resign?
    Janet Anderson: Before he made his final, cheap, point, which I shall treat in the manner it deserves, I was beginning to think that the hon. Gentleman was approaching the subject in the spirit we expect of all parties. I assure him that we shall continue to keep the House fully informed. The New Millennium Experience Company is satisfied that it has sufficient funding to carry through trading until the end of the year. He will know that we are engaged in discussions with Legacy plc about the future of the dome. I am sure that he does not expect me to predict the outcome of those negotiations; however, I can say that we hope to be able to make an announcement very soon.
    Mr. John Maxton: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Conservatives' constant attempts to make political capital out of the dome ring hollow, given their part in setting it up? Does my hon. Friend also agree that although all alternatives for the future of the dome must be considered, it is essential that the dome remain

    9
    in existence? We must find an alternative that will ensure that. Does she agree that it has already become almost an icon building, and one that should be maintained?
    Janet Anderson: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. I remind the House that the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) who, sadly, is not in his place today, said:
    Our task is to maximise the national gain and recognise that this is a non-party-controversial issue; it is an all-party endeavour.—[Official Report, 28 January 1998; Vol. 305, c. 271.]
    I only wish that Opposition Members would take the same view.
    My hon. Friend is right. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's official spokesman confirmed today that, in his view, the dome is an important part of the regeneration of the Greenwich peninsula. [Interruption.] If Opposition Members will listen for a moment, they may learn something about the regenerative effect of the dome. The Government are the first to acknowledge that the dome has not been the success for which everyone hoped, although it has had more than 5 million visitors. We should not overlook what has been achieved. The dome is a vital contributor to the development of the Greenwich peninsula, and has already brought considerable regenerative benefits to Greenwich and the wider Thames gateway.
    The hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) asked earlier whether local authorities had been consulted. Greenwich council predicts that 30,000 permanent jobs will be created in the borough of Greenwich within seven years as a result of the investment in the peninsula. Perhaps Opposition Members would rather those jobs had not been created. I am sure that the electors of Greenwich will be listening carefully to them today.
    Mr. Ian Taylor: For once, I shall give the Minister some all-party support. There is no doubt that the original motivation for the dome was the regeneration of that part of the Thames, and I hope that she will continue it. I am glad that Nomura has backed out of its bid, so there are no more beer-swilling concepts of leisure developments there. Will the hon. Lady please make sure that the Legacy bid is taken seriously? It is an opportunity to build a science park there and to help smaller companies. I hope that the negotiations are progressing as well as she suggested, so that an early conclusion can be reached.
    Janet Anderson: I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman. Although I cannot predict the outcome, the Legacy bid is interesting and exciting. The hon. Gentleman is right that we need an early conclusion. I can confirm that we have been having discussions with Legacy plc, the remaining bidder from the final shortlist of two, and the competition team is currently analysing the proposal from Legacy. I cannot predict what the outcome will be, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that we want an early solution and we will make an announcement shortly.
    Ann Clwyd: Will my hon. Friend congratulate the national botanic garden of Wales, which is also backed by the Millennium Commission, and has just exceeded all expectations by—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady might try to pick another question, as that does not relate to the one before us.
    Mr. Peter Ainsworth: Will the Minister now treat the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) in the manner that it deserves, and answer it? Does she think that Lord Falconer should resign?
    Janet Anderson: Lord Falconer is doing an extremely good job. The short answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is no.
    Mr. Ainsworth: We will see whether that opinion still holds on Thursday, when the National Audit Office report is published. On regeneration in east London, will the Minister confirm reports that the chairman of the New Millennium Experience Company has told Ministers that the site could be worth at least £300 million more if the dome were taken down?
    The Secretary of State is the chairman of the Millennium Commission. He may be sitting there pretending that it is nothing to do with him, but surely he has a duty to salvage whatever is possible from this disastrous year? With growing doubts about the viability of the deal with Legacy, would it not be better—would it not, in the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), "maximise the national gain"—to invite bids for the site with or without the dome—or is £300 million a price worth paying for the sake of new Labour's vanity?
    Janet Anderson: I can only say that I am not aware of any such advice from the chairman of the New Millennium Experience Company. I repeat to the hon. Member that we, in common with local authorities in the Greenwich area, consider the building very much part of the area's regeneration. That should be taken into account.

    Regional Television
    Dr. George Turner: What plans he has to address regional anomalies in television reception where viewers cannot receive appropriate regional variations of free-to-air broadcasts. [135342]
    The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Janet Anderson): I understand the reason for the question—my hon. Friend has a particular problem in his constituency. It is difficult to know how to resolve it, because the spectrum available for the improvement of terrestrial television services is currently limited. It is difficult to prevent regional anomalies from occurring through analogue and other terrestrial means. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I understand

    11
    the problem, which is also experienced by my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman). If there is any way we can resolve it, we shall try to do so.
    Dr. Turner: I thank my hon. Friend for the interest that she has shown in the matter, and especially for coming to my constituency, where she heard how irritating it is to be interested in the news of Norfolk but to have to watch news that is targeted at Yorkshire.
    Under the previous Government, when digital services, which provide new possibilities for dealing with the problems, were introduced, my constituents were ignored. Will my hon. Friend give me a promise that I can take back to them—that they will not be ignored in the White Paper or subsequent legislation, and that every attempt will be made to ensure that seizing the opportunities of the digital era means that we can put the problem behind us?
    Janet Anderson: My hon. Friend is quite right. I congratulate him on the tireless campaign that he has conducted in his constituency and in the House on behalf of his constituents. He is right to say that digital television uses the spectrum more efficiently and enables the number and range of services to be increased significantly.
    The Government's priority is to deploy the scarce spectrum to enable the BBC and the Independent Television Commission to provide digital television services throughout the United Kingdom and to ensure, as far as possible, reception of the appropriate regional variations. I assure my hon. Friend that we will address the matter in the White Paper when it is published later this year.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: Will the White Paper consider the fact that Yorkshire Television cannot be received everywhere in North Yorkshire?
    Janet Anderson: The hon. Lady cites yet another example. I am not sure of the number of such examples, but there are several around the country. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I appreciate that people in particular areas would like to receive their own ITV regional service, especially regional news. We understand the concern that that causes. If we can do something about it, we shall.

    Public Buildings
    Mr. Phil Hope: What steps he is taking to improve the architectural quality of public buildings. [135343]
    The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Alan Howarth): We have established the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment—CABE—to promote good architecture and design. We have published a statement of our commitment in a document entitled "Better Public Buildings", copies of which have been placed in the Library. It has been wholeheartedly endorsed by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in his foreword to the document.
    Mr. Hope: In a recent debate that the early years network hosted in the House, the motion that
    12
    public architecture is failing children was carried overwhelmingly. That is a great worry. In Corby, there is an early years excellence centre which is an example of excellent design for children in my constituency. Through sure start and the early years excellence programme, we are spending approximately £350 million on public buildings for children in the next few years. Will my hon. Friend assure me that the excellence that we have seen in Corby will encourage the rapid growth in, and injection of, capital into public architecture, to benefit children throughout the country?
    Mr. Howarth: I agree with my hon. Friend. I am glad that the people of Penn Green in his constituency like the sure start building that has been built there. Large and increasing amounts of capital are spent on public buildings, but for decades, far too many were mediocre—if not downright ugly—in design, depressing for those who visited and worked in them, and unnecessarily expensive to operate and maintain.
    The Government take it as axiomatic that we should design our public buildings well as a statement of civic values and our commitment to best value in every sense. My hon. Friend spoke about the importance of good quality in public buildings to which children have access. Peckham library, which won the Stirling prize at the weekend, is an example of the wonderful public design of a building that children use. I have asked CABE to work with the sure start unit to ensure that the new wave of sure start buildings enhances the quality of the environment, and lifts the spirit as well as providing first rate public services.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: I recognise that the quality of architectural design is a subjective issue, and I say that with some feeling. Does the Minister agree that the lottery funding of many buildings has aroused much greater public interest in the need for quality of design? I say this diplomatically: will the hon. Gentleman put his money where his mouth is and require that when Government Departments become clients they insist on good-quality buildings—even if that means more expensive buildings? Even if they are more expensive, good-quality buildings are a much better financial, as well as environmental, investment.
    Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman has certainly carried the flag for high-quality public architecture for many years, as I well know, and I pay tribute to him for that. From the beginning, the lottery distributors—this has been a commitment shared by Governments of both parties—have been insistent that the buildings funded from that remarkable source of capital funding should be of high quality. The Arts Council and the heritage lottery fund have done excellently in that regard.
    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has appointed Ministers in a range of Departments to be champions of high quality and high standards of architecture and design in and for the public sector buildings for which their Departments have responsibility. We are determined to push forward that crusade.
    Mr. Tony Banks: May I inform the Minister that I have a rather commodious office in Portcullis House, which regrettably rather resembles a Novotel? However, the architecture of the atrium of

    13
    Portcullis House is stunning and wonderful. What will my hon. Friend do to encourage greater public access to that atrium, so that people can enjoy the architecture for which their tax has paid?
    Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend also has long been committed to high-quality architecture. Of course, he is always a lucky fellow. I am glad that he has a commodious office. Responsibility for the construction project—that is, Portcullis House—has been a matter for the House and not for the Government. All parties have been involved in the oversight of the project. I am sure that the House authorities will wish members of the public to have the best opportunity to see the remarkable piece of architecture by Michael Hopkins and Partners, which is also a remarkable piece of structural engineering. I do not doubt that my hon. Friend, who is always the most assiduous and conscientious of parliamentarians, will be receiving many delegations who will come to wait upon him in his office.

    Millennium Dome
    Dr. Julian Lewis: If he will make a statement on the future of the millennium dome after 31 December. [135344]
    The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Janet Anderson): The Government are currently in discussion with Legacy plc, in relation to Legacy's proposal for a high-technology business campus at the Greenwich site. The Legacy proposal is currently being analysed by the competition team in advance of any decision on preferred bidder status. We hope to make an announcement in due course, but I can assure the House that the Government are determined to get the best possible deal to continue the regeneration of east London.
    Dr. Lewis: One thing that the dome and its contents will not be doing next year is fulfilling the Prime Minister's boast that they would form the first paragraph of his general election manifesto. Is the Minister aware that last week the national health service pulled the plug on four community hospitals, including a long-awaited £22 million community hospital serving New Forest? How many more future consequences will there be for the people of this country as a result of the squandering of three quarters of a billion pounds on the millennium dome and its contents?
    Janet Anderson: I do not know how the hon. Gentleman has the brass neck to ask that question. What the Government have done through the new opportunities fund has been popular. I refer him to a comment made by an Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth), who said that health and education are things on which lottery money should not be spent? Perhaps the Conservative party would like to tell us what it would cut, in addition to £16 billion-worth of cuts in public spending. Would the Conservatives cut sport in schools? Would they cut the green spaces initiative? Would they axe the additional equipment for cancer patients, the after-school clubs and the healthy living centres? People outside the House will want those questions answered.

    Primary Schools (Sport and Art Grants)
    Dr. Nick Palmer: When he expects the first grants will be made to primary schools under the space for sport and arts scheme. [135345]
    The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): There is a two-stage application process for the space for sport and arts scheme. In the first, which is already under way, local education authorities have received the prospectus and will return outline proposal forms by the end of the year. In the second, which will run from the end of January onwards, LEAs will be invited to work up projects which have been given in-principle approval and to submit detailed applications. We hope that the first grants will be made during the summer of next year.
    Dr. Palmer: I thank my right hon. Friend for his comments. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that schools will not have to match the funding? We should focus on the most needy schools, but they are precisely the schools with the most claims on their resources. If we want the programme to be effective, it needs to carried out without the requirement for match funding.
    Mr. Smith: I can confirm that. The principal element of funding for the space for sport and arts for schools scheme comes directly from the Exchequer as part of the capital modernisation fund. Lottery money is being provided in addition. The running costs, once the projects are up and running, will be met by the Department for Education and Employment through the normal funding arrangements.
    Mr. Graham Brady: Given that sports facilities in schools are increasingly coming under pressure, and that the time for sport in the school curriculums is already under pressure, will the Secretary of State take into account the fact that it is very important for local sporting clubs to augment the sporting facilities that are available to schoolchildren? In that context, will he consider visiting the Bowdon hockey, cricket and squash club in my constituency? By working closely with local schools, it allows schoolchildren to benefit from professional coaching and to take advantage of other opportunities that they should have but which will be affected by the proposal of the Labour-controlled local authority of Trafford to allow house building on one of its most heavily used playing fields. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman could take the opportunity of a visit to say whether he shares my view, which I hope he does, that that would be an act of vandalism which should be stopped by the Government.
    Mr. Smith: The activities of individual sports clubs are a matter primarily for the clubs themselves and for sports governing bodies. We will shortly announce additional funding for the national governing bodies for sport to assist them with their work. However, in relation to school sport, we have taken measures drastically to reduce the number of school playing fields that are being sold off. We have also taken measures through the new opportunities fund, and through the green spaces initiative, to create playing fields and recreation space. There is also a proposal to spend £750 million on school

    15
    sports facilities—also through the new opportunities fund. That combination of measures will help to put right the damage done by the Tories when they were in government. Once again, we have not had a clear answer from the Tories. Will they cut the new opportunities fund projects or not? Those are the projects that will put sports facilities back into schools, to the benefit of our children.

    Millennium Dome
    Mr. David Tredinnick: How much (a) national lottery and (b) Treasury money has been spent on the millennium dome. [135346]
    The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): The New Millennium Experience Company has been awarded total grant of £628 million from the Millennium Commission for the millennium experience at Greenwich and its associated national programme of events and activities. No Exchequer funds have been spent on the dome.
    Mr. Tredinnick: Is the right hon. Gentleman not ashamed that so much public sector money has been used to shore up that project? Is that not in stark contrast to private sector projects such as Alton Towers, Flamingo Land and CenterParcs, which have managed to make a profit and entertain people for far less money? Is it not astonishing that, after all this time, there is still no proper funfair at the dome to entertain children? Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that, if the dome is knocked down at the end of the year, the ball and chain will be on the front page of the next Labour party general election manifesto?
    Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman ignores the fact that so far 5.2 million people have visited the Dome, of whom 4.15 million have been revenue-paying visitors. In the whole of last year 2.65 million people visited Alton Towers, the other most-visited "paying" attraction. The dome has already had nearly twice as many visitors as Alton Towers. Moreover, the latest surveys show that satisfaction rates among visitors to the dome are rising: enjoyment and satisfaction levels are now at 88 per cent.
    Ann Clwyd: As my right hon. Friend knows, attractions in other parts of the country are also funded by the Millennium Commission, and have proved extremely successful. The national botanic garden of Wales, for instance, has exceeded all expectations by attracting as many visitors in its first six months as it expected to attract in the first year. Will my right hon. Friend kindly offer his congratulations?
    Mr. Smith: I am happy to congratulate all those involved with the national botanic garden of Wales, which, with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, I visited shortly before it opened. It is a splendid building—a very fine dome, created by Lord Foster—and it has indeed attracted far more visitors than the number originally envisaged in the business plan. The same applies to a number of other projects funded by the Millennium Commission, from the Eden project in
    16
    Cornwall to Dynamic Earth in Edinburgh. Those projects are proving remarkably successful and, indeed, profitable for the organisations concerned.
    Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Can the Secretary of State confirm what was said earlier by the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting—that he has not been told by David James, chairman of the New Millennium Experience Company, that if the dome were demolished, the Government would receive an extra £300 million? If he can give such confirmation, will he take urgent advice, and if he finds that that is true, will he consider allowing the dome to be demolished—or must it remain as a testament to new Labour's failure?
    Mr. Smith: As my hon. Friend the Minister said, we have received no such advice.

    Tourism
    Mr. David Atkinson: If he will make a statement on recent trends in the tourism figures for Great Britain. [135347]
    The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Janet Anderson): The numbers of North American and other long-haul visitors to the United Kingdom have increased by 1 per cent. and 4 per cent. respectively in the first eight months of this year compared to the corresponding period of 1999, although visits from Europe are—rather disappointingly—down by 5 per cent., and overall visits by 3 per cent.
    Overall spend by overseas visitors is, however, up by 1 per cent. to £8.5 billion in the first eight months of this year compared to the. equivalent period of 1999, and remains on course to be one of the highest levels on record.
    Mr. Atkinson: Will the Minister confirm that last year the number of foreign visitors fell for the first time for nine years? Is she aware that the British Tourist Authority predicts a further decline this year? Does she agree that the British tourist industry needs all the help it can get, in the light of ever-increasing global competition? If so, what representations has she made to her right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer about the fact that the cost of petrol at the pumps in Britain is now the highest in the European Union, whereas three and a half years ago, under the last Conservative Government, it was the lowest?
    Janet Anderson: That, dare I say it, is a bit rich, coming from a member of the party that cut funding for the English tourist board from about £25 million to under £10 million—its level when we came to office.
    We are doing our best to reverse the declining trend in overseas visitor numbers, but we must remember that this is now a global market, and we are competing with other countries throughout the world. What will encourage people to come here is a value-for-money, good-quality product. That is why, in conjunction with the industry, we produced the first-ever Government strategy for tourism, and established the first-ever ministerial summit.

    17
    I congratulate the tourist information centre in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, which deservedly won an England For Excellence award last week.
    Mr. Robert Maclennan: Is the Minister not being a little complacent in failing to recognise that in the last complete year there was a deficit in tourism of £8.3 billion and that the number of British visitors who went abroad was substantially higher than the number of foreign visitors coming to this country? Is it not time that the Minister recognised that among the factors contributing to that, apart from the high level of the pound, is the extremely high level of road fuel costs compared with that in other countries? Will the Minister draw to the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer the anecdotal evidence, which is supported by statistical evidence, that prices at the pumps of over 90p per litre, which are common in the highlands of Scotland, are deterring visitors, whose number has been cut by at least a third this year?
    Janet Anderson: I am afraid that I cannot agree with the right hon. Gentleman. His point about Scotland does not fall within my remit, but he may like to refer to the figures that were published some months ago, when people in Scotland expressed concern. One of the reasons identified for that was the failure of the industry in Scotland to get to grips with the opportunities presented by information technology. I hope that it will now do that.
    We have provided the British Tourist Authority with an extra £5 million in grant in aid for the three years from 1999–2000 to promote Britain overseas. With the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, we have set up a Britain abroad taskforce to see what we can do to improve Britain's image abroad, and we shall continue with that. All that is in stark contrast to the record of the Opposition, who consistently fail to take tourism seriously, although it contributes £64 billion a year to our economy.

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

    Mobile Phone Masts
    Mr. Michael Fabricant: If the Commissioners will make recommendations to parochial church councils regarding the financing of mobile phone masts on Church property. [135365]
    Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): Welcome to your first Church Commissioners' Question Time, Mr. Speaker. It is a non-partisan Question Time, we are protected from on high, and you will enjoy it as much as we do.
    The commissioners who, as the honourable Gentleman knows, are substantial property owners in their own right, are liaising on this matter with the Archbishops Council which, I am happy to say, is taking a lead on the matter.
    18
    The council is working on producing national-level guidance and advice on best practice which they believe will be of benefit to the parochial church councils.
    Mr. Fabricant: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the sight of mobile phone masts in rural areas, let alone in towns, is pretty abhorrent to most people? Is he also aware that a mobile phone antenna can be inserted into the top of a steeple internally so that it is not seen from the outside and can generate over £5,000 for the church concerned? When will the hon. Gentleman make recommendations to churches that their steeples be used for mobile phone masts, to hide them from the general public and generate money for the Church, thus scoring a double whammy?
    Mr. Bell: The Church will be grateful for that double whammy, which will allow it to render a public service to mobile phone operators, which need to cover 80 per cent. of the country, and perhaps also to gain revenue from that. The hon. Gentleman made the point even better than I can. The Church has taken a lead on the matter through the Archbishops Council and we are hopeful of positive results for parish churches throughout the land.
    Mr. Speaker: I call Dr. Tonge.
    Dr. Jenny Tonge: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speaker!"] I am sorry, Mr. Speaker.
    Will the hon. Gentleman tell us if he has any information on when the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions will publish the guidelines on mobile phone masts which were promised for the end of July this year?
    Mr. Bell: I am always grateful to have questions to the Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and the Regions pushed on to me, and am happy to answer the hon. Lady. Eighty-seven per cent. of our country should be covered by mobile phone operators by October next year. The Church will play its part in assisting those schemes and I hope that it will do so in the interests of our people, our parishes and our churches.

    Church Repairs (VAT)
    Miss Anne McIntosh: What recent representations the commissioners have received on the reduction of VAT on church repairs. [135366]
    Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): The Church continues to make representations on that issue to the Government at the highest level. A survey will shortly be published giving up-to-date figures for the total VAT burden borne by the Church, particularly in relation to the on-going repair bills payable for the maintenance of churches
    Miss McIntosh: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the figure that has been put on the cost is £40 million per annum, which is £40 million more than the churches receive in grants from the Government? Is he aware that, today, The Daily Telegraph gave what could be the contents of the Budget statement? Is there any truth in the

    19
    story that churches will receive a reduced rate of VAT? Will the hon. Gentleman continue to support my campaign to have a lower VAT rate?
    Mr. Bell: I had thought it was my campaign, but I am happy to have the hon. Lady as a joint campaigner on this issue. I have read today's newspapers and what might or might not be in the pre-Budget report of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Wednesday. I will hold my breath on that—it is somewhat bated—as will the House. I take the opportunity to thank the hon. Lady and all right hon. and hon. Members who have supported the campaign over many years.
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: My hon. Friend is very persuasive and I am sure that he will have another go at the Chancellor, as we are getting to the point where small communities are expected to carry very large debts in relation to their churches. I hope that he will be able to get a response from the Government. They must be sympathetic, particularly to rural areas, which are faced with frightening debts.
    Mr. Bell: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's support. As I said, I have read the newspaper reports. The campaign has been a long one. The imposition of VAT at 17.5 per cent. on church repairs absorbs a large amount of locally raised resources—and for no local benefit. A great injustice will be righted if the Chancellor makes the statement on Wednesday that we hope he will.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that some of us have been campaigning for a reduction for nearly 30 years, and Minister after Minister has given us a dusty answer? Will he try to persuade the Chancellor that he would earn well-deserved brownie points if he made the announcement that has been forecast this morning? It is a monstrous scandal that churches are paying back in VAT more than they receive in grant, as my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) said.
    Mr. Bell: The hon. Gentleman has been campaigning on this issue since 1972. He and I have attended Ministers of the Crown as part of delegations. I am grateful for his support. I have said that Church Commissioners questions is a non-partisan occasion, I would add that, if the Chancellor listens to us, and I think he will, he will be the first Chancellor to have done so in 30 years.
    Mr. Peter L. Pike: Is it not important that the Treasury recognise that such a move would win widespread support; that churches throughout the country perform not only a religious role, but, increasingly,
    20
    a community role; and that, in many parts of the country, they are an important part of the tourist industry? It is important that we get the concession—I hope, this week.
    Mr. Bell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his continuing support for the campaign. He makes several valid points. One is that the churches play an important role in communities in rural areas. Church repairs are to uphold and to maintain our traditions and heritage in local churches, which are a tourist attraction. I hope that those arguments alone will be sufficiently persuasive for the Chancellor on Wednesday.

    Clergy Pensions
    Mr. John Bercow: What assessment he has made of the adequacy of clergy pensions. [135367]
    Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): The formula for determining the full basic rate of clergy pension is two thirds of the previous year's national minimum stipend for incumbents. In addition, a lump sum of three times the pension is payable on retirement. As housing is provided while clergy are working, the formula recognises that clergy in retirement need to meet the cost of housing.
    Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that considered reply. Given that since 1998 pensions on service have been funded by parishes themselves and that large numbers of parishes have been forced against their will to lose the services of sound and able-bodied clergymen for no other or better reason than that they have reached the age of 70, does the hon. Gentleman not agree that it would make financial sense and strike a blow against the evil of ageism if clergymen were able to continue beyond the age of 70—or, indeed, for as long as their parishioners wanted them?
    Mr. Bell: I certainly appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point about ageism. All the points that the hon. Gentleman has made will be taken into account by the Archbishops Council—which has started a review of clergy stipends and is consulting widely within the Church as a part of that process. I shall ensure that the hon. Gentleman's remarks are incorporated in that review.
    Dr. Brian Iddon: In improving the clergy's conditions of service, will my hon. Friend consider allowing them to go to an industrial tribunal if they are unfairly dismissed?
    Mr. Bell: Yes. For the past three years, since my hon. Friend was first elected to the House, that point has been raised on the Floor of the House, and many hon. Members have supported that position. The point is being taken into account by various bodies within the Church, and I am hopeful that, over a longer period, we shall have the result that my hon. Friend would like.

Flooding and Flood Defence
3.30 pm
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the serious flooding that has occurred in England. I start by expressing the Government's heartfelt sympathy to all those who have been affected. Some houses have been flooded several times in the past few weeks. The whole House can only appreciate the desperation of all the householders who have been affected.
We do not need to be reminded of the extraordinarily heavy rains that have fallen in recent weeks—and that are still falling even as I speak. It is an extreme situation: the land is saturated and water is running straight off into already swollen rivers.
Floods on this scale are rare. River levels in York, for example, are the highest that they have been for 400 years. The 1947 flood was the most recent event on a comparable scale. It was caused by a combination of heavy rain and melting snow and resulted in significant economic damage. Direct comparisons, however, are difficult, as there has been much subsequent development on the flood plain and our defences are much better.
Happily, and most importantly, we have no reports of people losing their lives in the floods. Of the approximately 1.8 million properties at risk of flooding, fewer than 4,000 have flooded. Much of the extensive flooding has been of agricultural land. I believe that most flood defences for urban areas—including York, which is being severely tested—have operated to their design standard or better, demonstrating the justification for significant Government expenditure over the years.
As the House will be aware, further rain is to come and the prospect of more flooding cannot be ruled out. I shall return to the issue of funding flood defences in a moment. I have to emphasise, however, that we cannot stop all flooding, but can only reduce its risk. The recent floods have overwhelmed some defences. It would not have been practicable to have stopped them, as that would have required massive walls which, even if they could have been afforded and constructed, would be unlikely to be acceptable visually or environmentally. A few years ago, Shrewsbury turned down a flood defence scheme on those very grounds.
Having set out what has happened, I want to say what is being done in response. First, however, I pay tribute to the way in which the Environment Agency, emergency services, local authorities, voluntary services and the armed forces have responded to the flooding. They have been working around the clock to ensure that warnings are issued and acted upon, to evacuate people and to shore up defences. I also thank the local media, including local radio, for their contribution in ensuring that information has been made widely and quickly available. At the weekend, we saw on television the massive efforts being made to combat the floods in York. Similar efforts are being made across the country.
The Government's impression is that those partnerships have worked well and that flood warning arrangements have also been effective. As the House knows, when the immediate work has been completed, I shall be asking the
22
Environment Agency, in conjunction with its partners, to produce a full report on the flooding, its effects, how the flood warning and emergency response worked, and what lessons we can learn. Although I shall ask to have that report speedily, I emphasise that I do not want preparation of the report to get in the way of the immediate work that needs to be done. I ask for understanding on that point.
At the weekend, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister made an important Government announcement on flooding. He said that the Government were improving the Bellwin scheme to help local authorities which incur unexpected costs in response to floods. Assistance under the Bellwin formula will now be automatic for authorities dealing with the current floods. The rate of Government support will increase from 85 per cent. to 100 per cent. Valid claims will be settled within 15 working days and claims for advance payments can be made.
That announcement addresses important concerns that have been put to the Government. The scheme will also be reviewed more generally when the current flooding is over. The Government are also committed to discuss with the Association of British Insurers how the insurance industry can respond more quickly and effectively to emergencies such as this one and deal with problems of insurability for homes and businesses at risk of flooding. When the current problems are over, the Government, local authorities and other agencies will do all that we can in pursuing the recovery plan to help communities get back to normal as soon as possible.
On the funding of flood and coastal defence, the total amount of spending on flood and coastal defence in England from all sources approaches £400 million this year. The Government are by far the largest contributor to that expenditure. In the current financial year, the Government planned to spend some £337 million in England. That is a combination of Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food funding towards capital projects of some £80 million and £257 million delivered through the revenue support grant administered by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. Revenue support grant funding is used, among other things, to pay levies to the Environment Agency which the agency uses to fund the maintenance and operational costs of flood defences and the balance of capital works not met by MAFF grants.
The announcement in the spending review in July this year foresaw that MAFF funding would be increased by £5 million next year, £10 million the year after and £20 million the year after that. In all, MAFF funding was expected to total £267 million in the next three years.
We would also expect revenue support grant funding to increase by about 4 per cent. a year, in line with the spending review settlement. Recognising the severity of the floods, I am sure that the House will welcome my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister's announcement of a further £51 million over four years starting this year for additional investment in flood defence works;new whole catchment area assessment studies; and making an earlier start to planned improvements in the flood warning system.
That is new and additional money for England. Further discussions are in hand about the possibility of extra resources for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The further funding is particularly welcome because it will

23
allow us to progress more river-based defence schemes. That is an issue that the Ministry needs to discuss with the Environment Agency, but the Government expect to make an announcement on decisions as soon as possible.
I ask the House to join with me in expressing the Government's appreciation to all those who have been involved in responding to the flooding. I also ask the House to acknowledge the already major investment that the Government make in flood and coastal defence and to welcome the further funding that we are making available to help ensure that the risks are reduced for current and future generations.
Mr. James Paice: I thank the Minister for his statement. I extend the Opposition's sympathy and commiseration to all those who have been so seriously affected by the floods in the past few days and weeks. Many of them, as the Minister has rightly said, have suffered on more than one occasion. None of us can put ourselves in the place of somebody who has seen his home or business totally flooded. I join the Minister in paying tribute to all in the rescue services, who have worked above and beyond any call of duty to help those in distress.
The Minister's statement, although welcome, made no reference to the Bye report which followed the last serious flooding in this country: at Easter 1998, when four people died. As the hon. Gentleman said in this House earlier this year, that report clearly said that work had to be done to stop development on flood plains. Planning policy guidance note 25 has been out for consultation for two years. When will the definitive document be issued, especially as it seems that local authorities are still granting planning consent? In the six months to April this year, the Environment Agency advised local authorities to refuse 190 planning applications because of the risk of flooding, yet in 83 of those cases, the authorities ignored that advice and granted planning consent.
There was speculation over the weekend about maps of flood plains becoming available from, I believe, the Environment Agency. When will that happen? What discussions will the Minister or his colleagues hold with the insurance industry not only on the issues to which he referred but on the whole vexed issue of properties on flood plains becoming uninsurable?
Have not the Government already given permission in the past three years for substantial development on flood plains in Hertfordshire, the Nene valley and Ashford? Will they now reconsider those consents?
I welcome the improvements to the Bellwin system that the Minister has announced. It is obviously valuable to local authorities to get the full 100 per cent. and prompt payment. Will that apply only to expenditure incurred by the authorities themselves, or will they be able to pass on resources to others who may have to take remedial actions to deal with the crisis? That is clearly relevant to what the Minister said about the significant impact on agricultural land.
On flood defences, will the Minister confirm that the £51 million will be allocated over four years, so that the funding, although representing welcome extra resources, amounts to only £13 million a year? Is that additional to the £15 million announced in the comprehensive spending
24
review earlier this year? Does he accept that the figure of £400 million is slightly misleading? Is not it the case that this year the Environment Agency is spending only £290 million, and that MAFF is allocated £80 million—we are not sure whether that is on top, or as grant aid for the self-same capital projects. In short, how much will be spent in total, forgetting by whom, and how much of it will be new money?
Does the Minister agree with the report of the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs, published two years ago, that said that there was significant confusion among the different bodies responsible for flood prevention and control—the internal drainage boards, local authorities, the Environment Agency and his Ministry? If so, what action will he take to create a much clearer line of responsibility, so that the House can better understand not only who is responsible but where the money is going and who is to spend it on flood defences?
Mr. Morley: First, I welcome the hon. Gentleman's comments concerning those who have been affected and the response of the emergency services.
The hon. Gentleman may remember that the previous statement that I made to the House was on the Bye report and what we were doing in response. We have made great progress in acting on the report by uprating the national flood defence scheme, introducing flood risk awareness programmes and setting high-level targets for annual exercises between local authorities and agencies for dealing with floods.
All that investment and time over the past two years have paid off in the response that we have seen to the current situation, with smooth, professional action by the emergency services, much improved early warning, and everyone living on a flood plain getting a leaflet through the door from the Environment Agency explaining what action to take in response to flood warnings.
PPG25 is expected in December, and we would expect all planning authorities to take into account the advice from the Environment Agency on development on flood plains. In fact, 90 per cent. of applications that are objected to by the agency are turned down.
The publication of flood risk maps was another Bye report recommendation, and the Government have set that as a high-level target for the Environment Agency. All local authorities have flood risk maps for their areas and I understand that the Environment Agency is to make them more widely available.
There will be discussions with the insurance companies about risk with regard to those people who might find it difficult to insure their properties in the future.
The variety of funding sources that go towards flood and coastal defences is being reviewed and a report on that will be out in September 2001. I can confirm that the £51 million announced for the listed schemes is new and additional funding. In terms of the funding proposed, I announced in the statement that the Government are planning to spend £337 million in England—a combination of MAFF funding for capital projects and the funding that is delivered through the standard spending assessment to local authorities for flood defence. I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern about

25
funding but, given the Conservative's party proposal for a £16 billion cut in public expenditure, how would it improve matters?
Dr. Jack Cunningham: I welcome my hon. Friend's statement, particularly the improvements to the Bellwin formula and the additional £51 million of funding announced by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister. Although we all recognise that the national focus has, understandably, been on the villages, towns and cities that have been inundated, does my hon. Friend accept that if one house is flooded, the misery is the same whether the flooding is localised or widespread? In that connection, and bearing in mind the repeat flooding in areas of my constituency, which, although localised, has nevertheless damaged dozens of houses in Mirehouse, Cleator Moor and Egremont, will my hon. Friend ensure that the changes that he has announced today will be equally and fairly applied to all areas and all families who have suffered, regardless of the extent of the flooding?
Mr. Morley: I assure my right hon. Friend that that is the case. He is right that although there has been much focus on areas in which many houses are at risk, there have been small, localised floods all around the country in which people have been seriously affected. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister is ensuring that the Government talk to local authorities about how to make a unified response to ensure sure that people get the support that they need in all parts of the country.
Mr. Don Foster: I thank the Minister for the statement and join him in offering sympathy to those affected and thanks to our excellent emergency services. We also welcome the significant improvements to the Bellwin arrangements.
What plans does the Minister have to provide support to farmers in respect of uninsurable losses that they have suffered during the floods? Is he prepared to discuss with the Inland Revenue arrangements whereby businesses that have been affected by the floods will be allowed to submit their VAT and tax returns later than the official due date?
Finally, I welcome the fact that the Minister is planning to review the quagmire of our flood defence arrangements, but is it possible to bring forward the date on which that report is expected? Does he agree that given so many different bodies are able to act but there is no clarity about which has the duty to act, would it not be better to have a single body with the responsibility, power and funds to get on with the job?
Mr. Morley: First, I thank the Liberal Democrats for co-operating with the Government in providing time for the statement on their Opposition day.
The National Farmers Union has already made representations to MAFF about the problems that farmers are facing, and we will look at some of its suggestions. I also understand the hon. Gentleman's point about businesses whose records will have been destroyed in the floods. I give an undertaking that we will contact the Inland Revenue and ask for understanding on VAT and tax returns, given the circumstances, for the businesses affected.
26
As for the review on funding sources and arrangements, I give an undertaking to look at the time scale again, and I will write to the hon. Gentleman about it.
Mr. Christopher Leslie: I represent a constituency that has been adversely affected by much of the flooding on the River Aire in Yorkshire, so I thank my hon. Friend and other Ministers for the serious and thorough way in which they have dealt with the problem as it has developed. Will my hon. Friend give more details about the changes to the Bellwin formula which will increase the speed at which help can be given? Will the Government consider developing plans to help people with the reinsurance of properties if they have difficulties insuring them in future?
Mr. Morley: I know that my hon. Friend represents an area that has been affected. I have visited those areas and the emergency centres in Yorkshire, along with my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister. I can assure my hon. Friend about the changes to the Bellwin scheme. Applications had to be made because payment under the old system was not automatic, which could lead to delays. That point was put to me when I travelled the country, talking to local authorities and visiting the affected areas. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has acted—payment under the Bellwin scheme is now automatic, the funding is 100 per cent. and there is a prospect of advance payments and a 15-day turnaround for claims.
Mr. David Curry: Does the Minister appreciate that some businesses and households have been told that insurers will cover this disaster, but that their insurance will now cease? Is he aware that, for example, the Yorkshire Dales Icecream Company and the households and other businesses in and around Cononley are in precisely that position even though the flooding there was partly caused by the malfunctioning of a flood reservoir that was built under a previous flood relief scheme? Will he ensure that, while the Environment Agency undertakes its work, which is bound to be spread over a long time, those businesses are protected in the event of further problems between now and those works being accomplished? After all, we are not yet into winter.
Mr. Morley: I accept the right hon. Gentleman's point. Of course, that is one of the matters that we would expect the Environment Agency to look at when it has time to review the situation and the areas that might need attention. He is right about insurance, which is why my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has been anxious to take the issue forward in discussions with the insurances companies and to ensure that consideration is given to those homes and businesses that may face insurance difficulties in future. It is fair to say that, at present, there are few people who cannot get insurance in flood risk areas.
Mrs. Ann Cryer: I should like to thank my hon. Friend the Minister for visiting the Stockbridge area of Keighley last Friday and talking to many of my constituents and taking on board many of their anxieties. On Friday, we discussed topping up area social funds. He assured me that he would take that on board because many of my constituents will need to resort to social funds to

27
help them out of immediate difficulty. The uninsurability of dwellings has been mentioned. That will be a problem for many of my constituents because many insurers—most of whom have been helpful recently—may not want to take on those households again. Yorkshire Electricity's vans were very much in evidence on Friday, but we did not know that the company was charging households a £65 reconnection fee. I was going to mention that to my hon. Friend privately, but I thought that I would get it in now.
Mr. Morley: I was very moved by the experience of the people I met in my hon. Friend's constituency. Again, the local authority was working hard with all the agencies to provide support. I was impressed that Benefits Agency representatives were present at the rest centre to advise people on the spot. I understand that the Department of Social Security has a central contingency fund. I know that applications are being made from flood hit areas to ensure that there is adequate funding for those people who may qualify for the social fund. I shall take such matters as those raised by my hon. Friend into consideration. I must confess that I was not aware that the utilities were charging people a reconnection charge. I should have thought that the utilities would have taken into account the stress that those people were under at the time.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: As the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) said, areas where flooding is predictable already receive much attention from the Environment Agency. Other areas, however, which had not had problems with flooding for many years, including Duffield in my constituency, have suffered from severe and sudden problems during the past few days. How will the Minister encourage the Environment Agency to prioritise work in those areas, and what steps will the agency take to protect areas that had not previously had problems with flooding?
Mr. Morley: The Environment Agency will, because of the current situation, prioritise work on river systems. In the evaluation of the floods, the needs of areas that were affected on this occasion but which had not been affected by previous floods will be taken into account. However, some areas were flooded because of blockages in or the backing up of drains, which are also the responsibility of local authorities. All those points will be taken into consideration.
Mr. John Grogan: Will my hon. Friend, who visited the Selby area on Saturday, ensure that the relevant authorities seriously consider a detailed plan from the parish council at Barlby, where 200 homes were flooded over the weekend, to strengthen and repair the flood bank there? He will also receive a report from the Selby area about the failure of the electricity supply during the weekend to more than 10,000 homes. That might have implications for the siting of supply stations and their protection from flooding. As the flood crisis spreads throughout rural Yorkshire, will he ensure that the relevant authorities liaise closely with parish councils, which are often the best sources of local information, community support and volunteers?
Mr. Morley: My hon. Friend will recall that we discussed many of those issues when we met in Selby on
28
Saturday, when we also talked to local authorities. He is right about the situation in Barlby, although it is worth pointing out that many of the houses involved were built in 1995 in a flood risk area. Such considerations need to be taken into account with regard to such developments.
The same point also applies to electricity substations. I understand that the problem in Selby was that the substation was flooded. We need to consider the siting of such stations in flood risk areas and whether they need to be defended. The hard work of the Environment Agency prevented an important substation in Leeds city centre from flooding. If it had flooded—it was very close to being inundated—that would have caused absolute havoc in the city. We will have to take such matters into account when we plan for what might be more frequent extreme weather conditions and the need to protect vital infrastructure, such as substations.
Mr. Phil Willis: I point out to the Minister that it was not just the Ouse but most rivers in Yorkshire that were flooding. The River Nidd overflowed in Knaresborough, and caused extensive flooding from the riverside through to two caravan car parks. Most of the area had to be evacuated. Thanks to the emergency services, the borough council and, in particular, King James school in Knaresborough, evacuees could be accommodated. Does the Minister share my concern about the fact that many people, especially those on Abbey road in Knaresborough, did not receive a flood warning until the flood was 4 ft high in their dwellings? There was no awareness exercise in that area, partly because—the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) made this point—it was not an area of traditional flooding. Will the Minister give me an assurance that the way in which the Environment Agency issues awareness warnings will be reviewed? People should receive that information in good time to save at least some of their property and belongings.
Mr. Morley: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. I have emphasised that no Government can guarantee that floods will not happen. We must reduce the risks and ensure that people have adequate warning. In response to the Northampton disaster and the lessons that we learned from the Bye report, we have put many extra resources into a national flood warning system which, by and large, has worked better. However, that is not to say that there have been no gaps in the system—the hon. Gentleman referred to one. I give him an assurance that in the evaluation that will take place following the floods, we shall examine the area that he mentioned. When we identify failures, we shall take steps to ensure that the situation is improved.
Mr. Richard Burden: My hon. Friend will be aware that parts of the midlands—especially in Worcestershire and Shropshire—have been badly affected during the past week. Although, by comparison, my own area in Birmingham has not been particularly affected this time, people in parts of my constituency have suffered four times during the past two years an event that they had been told would occur only once every 50 years. The latest occasion was in July.
As a result, various local taskforces were set up and some lessons were learned that my hon. Friend might like to take on board. First, there is a desperate need to

29
improve flood defences. Although I welcome the changes to the Bellwin formula, we need to take a fresh look at the operation of cost-benefit analyses, because they often discriminate against areas of localised flooding in favour of big projects.
The second point is on insurance companies. Our experience in Birmingham is that, as a result of those four events, some properties are uninsurable or the premiums are unsustainable. Urgent approaches must be made to the insurance companies in order to stop them cherry picking.
Mr. Morley: My hon. Friend makes a good point about frequency. Generally, flood defences are engineered to certain standards—for example, one flood in 150 years, or 100 years or 200 years. Although there is much that we do not know about global warming, there is certainly no dispute that the planet is warming nor that we are seeing changes in weather patterns. We may have to re-evaluate current standards of defences that are set at one flood in 150 years, perhaps reducing that time because of changing weather patterns. Of course, there are cost implications in that for the Government. We accept those implications; that is one reason why we are significantly increasing the available budget.
We have to apply a cost-benefit analysis, although I am aware that it causes problems in some local schemes. We shall certainly consider those in future.
The Government will hold discussions with insurance companies on all the issues raised by my hon. Friend.
Mr. Laurence Robertson: I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for visiting Tewkesbury last Friday to look at the flood damage. His visit was greatly appreciated. He will recall that I stressed the additional problem experienced in the small village of Sandhurst in my constituency where there was an explosion at a chemical factory—a couple of days before the floods, thankfully. If it had occurred during the flooding, the emergency services would not have been able to reach the area.
Will the Minister carry out a full investigation into that explosion, including the reason why a chemical factory was allowed to be sited on an obvious flood plain? As my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) pointed out, to build houses on or near flood plains causes many problems. One reason why councils do so is the pressure to accommodate the number of houses that they are asked to provide.
Mr. Morley: The hon. Gentleman is right about the risk of pollution during floods. Any company dealing with hazardous products, such as chemicals, must follow certain standards. I understand that the Health and Safety Executive is currently investigating the case to which the hon. Gentleman refers and I am sure that it will be dealt with.
On flood plain development, new guidance will be issued in December and we shall expect planning authorities to act on it.
Mr. David Chidgey: The Minister will agree that there has been much debate about who is responsible for approving new developments on flood plains. However, there is a further question: about approval for the development of new estates, where the
30
increased run-off created by extra hard surfaces inundates adjacent areas. That is a recurrent problem—year on year—in my constituency. Who is responsible for approving such plans? Is it the planning authority, the Environment Agency or the drainage authority? At present, they are all passing the buck.
Mr. Morley: The hon. Gentleman is right. Increased run-off must be taken into account in flood plain development. I understand that PPG25 will address the issue of run-off as part of the guidance to local authorities. That new guidance will not be merely a code of practice as it was in the past; it will have much stronger force to ensure that planning authorities take note of it.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the giving of permission; that is a matter for the planning authorities.
Mr. John Greenway: I too thank the Deputy Prime Minister for visiting Malton on Friday. The Minister went to Malton last year; this year, the floods are worse. The beleaguered community wants to know whether his announcement and his change of policy today mean that flood defence systems, currently at the design stage, will be built more speedily. Is it likely that they will be progressed and constructed as quickly as possible?
Will the Minister ask his recovery plan teams to pay attention to the problems of alternative accommodation? Currently, the homes of about 1,500 families in North Yorkshire are flooded and are likely to remain so for several days. Those families will be out of their homes for nine months or longer. We need desperately to find them accommodation for that period—especially during the run-up to Christmas.
Mr. Morley: The hon. Gentleman is right. I visited Malton and Norton in 1998 and, given the severity of the flood then, I did not expect it to happen again for a very long time. However, as he said, the floods are even worse two years later.
The additional £51 million, which is new money, means that we can progress more schemes. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that a scheme for Malton is at the design stage, but I understand that some technical issues need to be addressed. The scheme will be introduced as quickly as possible, and I assure him that the frequency of flooding that Malton has experienced will have an effect on the way that we score the schemes and on the priority that we give to them.
As the hon. Gentleman said, the problems of alternative accommodation is a serious issue. It will be tackled by local recovery teams and we want to ensure that people will continue to receive help from such teams even when the cameras and the newspapers are no longer present.
Sir Michael Spicer: When the Deputy Prime Minister kindly visited my constituency over the weekend, he gave so many assurances that they prompted my constituents to ask when Upton upon Severn will receive its share of the £51 million or when we will be told that it will do so. More generally, when we will we hear any details of the £51 million and, more particularly, what will its impact be on reducing the risks of flooding?
Mr. Morley: As the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, schemes for flood defence have to go through the

31
processes of design, evaluation and receiving planning permission. They cannot be introduced immediately. Nevertheless, I repeat that the £51 million of new money means that we will be able to introduce a range of additional schemes that we could not have introduced otherwise.
Miss Anne McIntosh: Is the Minister aware that the focus of attention in my area was the prevention of flooding in the down-town part of York itself? The perverse consequence was that the Vale of York was left totally exposed and, in Rawcliffe, the flood defences were breached. No sandbags were provided even though they had been requested from City of York council at 11 o'clock on Friday evening. I visited the area the next day and saw the consequences of the flooding. Sandbags were still not available and pumping was not started until 4 o'clock that afternoon. In fact, social services were nowhere to be seen until today and no soup kitchens had been provided. When I was in the area, I learned that one couple had not been rehoused and had nowhere to go. It is a serious problem, and the people in that area feel neglected and exposed.
The Minister also mentioned the revenue support grant. Will he respond to the request from the Local Government Association, which wants additional safeguards so that within year changes, as there will be this year, in local authority spending on flood defence schemes are recognised in the SSA for future years?
Mr. Morley: The hon. Lady has an Adjournment debate on the subject tomorrow and that will enable us to debate some of the issues in more detail than I can now. Much of her constituency is a flood plain and its flooding has taken a great deal of pressure off urban areas. The flood plains in Leeds, which flooded to take some pressure off other areas, have reduced the water level in Leeds by 1.5 m. Water catchment areas form part of the cycle of defence.
Sandbags have been issued in York, but some of the city's flood defences were operating beyond their designed capacity. Sandbags were needed in the city to stop the water getting under the flood defences and destroying them. Therefore, their distribution was an issue of priority. However, I understand that sandbags have been distributed as widely as they possibly can be.
On the SSA, money at above the rate of inflation is being made available for flood defence in all parts of the country. I am sure that we shall have the opportunity to discuss that in more detail tomorrow.
Mr. John Townend: Stamford Bridge in my constituency has been affected twice in the past two years. I never thought that I would welcome the Deputy Prime Minister tramping around my constituency, but we were grateful that he came. I apologise for not being able to be with him, as I was attending a meeting of the Economic and Development Committee of the Council of Europe.
32
I am sure that the Minister will recognise that, having being affected twice in two years, with the prospect of floods again in another two years, the people of Stamford Bridge are saying that something must be done. I accept that the problem is enormous and not easy to solve, but when he is considering new flood defence work once the floods have gone down, will he make it clear to the Environment Agency and English Nature that top priority must be given to the safety and property of householders and businesses, rather than to birds and wildlife?
There will be a problem with insurance. In Stamford Bridge, small businesses have been particularly affected. Will the Minister consult the Deputy Prime Minister on whether businesses and houses which people cannot insure or for which excessive insurance rates must be paid should receive council tax relief?
Mr. Morley: The hon. Gentleman will know that when I visited Malton two years ago, I also went to Stamford Bridge, where, again, I did not expect such flooding in another two years. We will have to take into account changes in weather and more frequent flooding—and we are doing so by providing increased expenditure. His idea about council tax relief for affected businesses is interesting. We are discussing the matter of insurance companies, and we shall be looking at a range of options. The option that he is advocating would of course involve increasing public expenditure—of which he has not always been in favour.
Miss McIntosh: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Although it is always a pleasure to see the Deputy Prime Minister and other Ministers in one's constituency, may I seek your guidance? I have written to you on the matter. I was informed that the Deputy Prime Minister was coming to my constituency, and then that he was not. In the end, he came to my constituency accompanied by the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, the hon. Member for City of York (Mr. Bayley), and a number of national film and local radio station crews, but I was not informed. May I be assured that parliamentary conventions will be respected in future?
The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. John Prescott): I met you, you twit.
Mr. Speaker: Order. It is an established parliamentary courtesy that a Member visiting another Member's constituency on official business should give prior notification. That applies to Ministers as it does to other Members. However, the matter should be sorted out between the Members concerned. I suggest that the hon. Lady write to the Deputy Prime Minister and to the Under-Secretary.
Miss McIntosh: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it parliamentary language to call a fellow parliamentarian a twit?
Mr. Prescott: On this occasion, yes.
Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not nice.

Opposition Day
[19TH ALLOTTED DAY]
Opposition Day

  Pensions and Pensioners
  Mr. Speaker: Before I call the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) to move the motion, I should announce that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  4.13 pm
  Mr. Steve Webb: I beg to move,
  That this House believes that pensioners have been betrayed by both Conservative and Labour Governments over the last twenty years; notes that the Conservatives devalued the basic state pension, slashed future SERPS entitlements and oversaw the scandalous mis-selling of personal pensions; notes that the Labour Manifesto promised that pensioners would 'share fairly in the increasing prosperity of the nation', but that the Government now spends a smaller share of national income on pensioners than when Labour came to power; notes that pensioner poverty rose by 400,000 in the first two years of the present Government and that there were nearly 50,000 excess winter deaths in 1998–99 alone, mainly among pensioners; further notes that this year's 75p pension rise was an insult to pensioners and that despite a multi-million pound take-up campaign half a million pensioners still do not receive the means-tested assistance to which they are entitled; believes that the failure to adopt the recommendations of the Royal Commission on long-term care will still leave tens of thousands of pensioners having to sell their homes to pay for care; is concerned that hundreds of thousands of pensioners have faced delays in receiving their pension because of the Government's failure to deal with the problems of the NIRS2 computer system; and therefore calls upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer to announce a substantial increase in the rate of the basic state pension, with additional increases for the oldest pensioners, and to apologise for failing to deliver a decent pension to all pensioners.
  Today's debate is about pensions, but it is about much more besides. It is about the attitude of successive Governments to older people. The 75p pension rise has been much talked about and is a symptom of that attitude, but it is but one of many examples. The Government's failure to implement the recommendations of their own royal commission on long-term care is another example, to which I hope my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) will be able to draw attention later in the debate. The Government's failure to legislate against age discrimination in the workplace—they went only for a feeble code of conduct—and to stamp out ageism in the national health service are but a few more examples. In failing to treat Britain's older people with true dignity, the Government are following the tradition set by their predecessors. For that reason, our motion refers not only to the current Government but to those in office over "the last twenty years", wherein pensioners have been second-class citizens.
  The Government's attitude to older people was summarised by the Prime Minister telling the Labour party conference that he wanted Britain to be "a young country"—that all the things associated with youth were positive and that, by definition, an older and ageing country, which ours is, was a negative thing about which we should be concerned. That is symptomatic of the current Government's attitude. Later, I shall refer to key documents that the Government are concealing, which would reveal their failure to act in support of
  34
  pensioners and their willingness to keep the pressure off in terms of pensions increases. The Government are sitting on two important documents that should be before the House, but are not. That is a matter of concern.
  Our motion begins with the Conservatives' record. As the House will expect, I am a regular reader of Saga Magazine, and I am sure that the Minister of State is too. The magazine recently conducted a survey asking its readers their views on Conservative proposals on pensions—which I have heard described as robbing Peter to pay Peter, by taking pensioners' awards away with one hand and giving them back, plus a few pence, with the other. Although it might have been presumed that the readers would want more money on the pension, rather than in other forms, they voted substantially against the Conservative proposals. The reason was simple: as many said, "We don't trust the Tories on pensions."
  Pensioners have long memories. They remember the Conservatives' record on pensions and they are not willing to trust the party again. That record is one of not believing in the state pension, of eroding the basic state pension during their 18 years in office, of attacking SERPS—the state earnings-related pension scheme—and of slashing entitlements. In addition, as the House knows, women whose husbands were concerned about making provision for them when they became widows are now reaping the harvest of changes that were sown by the Conservatives in the mid-1980s. Pensioners, rightly, do not trust the Conservatives on pensions.
  What do the Conservatives offer pensioners for the future? They face a dilemma: they have to go into the next election pledged to cut taxes, but they still need something to say to pensioners. The entirety of the policy that they have announced is twofold. First, they pledge to take money that pensioners already receive and then to give it back to them; added to that will be some money taken from lone parents who are trying to find work and some taken from the poorest of the poor through the social fund, to a grand total of 42p. At the next election, the electorate will be faced with a choice between a party that gave them '75p and one that promises them 42p—what a choice.
  In my customary fashion, I am being generous to the Conservatives by citing a figure of 42p. The Conservatives said that their pension increase next April would be £5.50–£2 for inflation and £3.08 for the gimmicks, leaving 42p. However, we now know that £2.25 will be needed to cover inflation. Although the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) might provide one in her speech, we have not yet heard a revised figure for the increase. If it is still to be £5.50, with inflation taking £2.25 rather than £2, that leaves only 17p. Perhaps I have been too generous.
  Secondly, those calculations are based on an equation that does not include tax, which leads me to one of the features of the Conservative proposals to which the readers of Saga Magazine objected most. The £150 winter fuel payment is tax free, as is the reduced television licence, worth more than £100. Once those pensioner benefits are subject to tax, many pensioners will be worse off overall. That is the best the Conservatives offer for the state pension in year 1; in years 2, 3, 4 and 5, they offer nothing. They would return to the old ways of nothing more than price indexation—nothing more than 75p and its equivalent.

  35
  As for the Conservatives' long-term plan, they have always wanted to privatise everything that moves—and, in the case of the railways, plenty of things that do not move—and pensions are no exception. They tried to go for the full Monty—to phase out the basic state pension. Before the previous general election, they cobbled together a policy that was roundly rejected, so now they are going to try to do it very slowly.
  The Conservative party intends to start with the young, by telling them that they can opt out of national insurance and save for a private pension in future. However, there is a slight cash flow problem. If people in their 20s start paying less national insurance in return for the state saving some national insurance in 40 years, there will be a bit of a gap between the loss of revenue now and the saved expenditure in 40 years. Where will the money come from? That is another black hole in the Conservative spending plans.
  Perhaps it is unnecessary to dwell too long on the Conservative record. The House is familiar with it; more important, pensioners are familiar with it. I have one thing to say about Conservative proposals for the future. I have seen examples from around the country of Conservative literature relating to the party's proposals for pensioners, and the figure of £5.50 features prominently. I am reminded of the situation that arises when one writes an article for a newspaper, and the sub-editors remove the final paragraph because there is insufficient space. In this instance, it is the paragraph which discloses where the £5.50 will come from. Mysteriously, those who read the first line will see that £5.50 is to go on the pension, but they may never read the line that states that £5.08 is to come off. I believe that that is dishonest, and I hope that the hon. Member for Beckenham will dissociate herself from any local Conservative association that is putting out such literature.
  Mr. John Bercow: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He observed a few moments ago that the Conservative party is not trusted by pensioners on the subject of pensions. How, therefore, does he explain the fact that even at the 1997 general election, 44 per cent. of pensioners voted Conservative, only 34 per cent. voted Labour, and we cannot quite remember how poorly the Liberals did?
  Mr. Webb: The hon. Gentleman underestimates pensioners by assuming that all they do is make a simple calculation of what their pensions will be. Pensioners look at a range of policies, not just pensions. Does the hon. Gentleman want to dispute the verdict of Saga Magazine readers on the Conservative pensions policy, which they rejected by an overwhelming majority when specifically asked about it a month or so ago?
  The Conservative record is well known. We might have expected better from Labour. Many pensioners voted Labour in the hope of something better. In their manifesto, the Government set themselves the goal that pensioners would share fairly in the rising prosperity of the nation. How is that to be measured? Clearly, by the share of national income going from the Government to pensioners. One would not measure it narrowly,
  36
  by looking just at pensions. One would look at the range of things given by Government to pensioners. I did that, in the form of a written question.
  Mr. Gerald Kaufman: The hon. Gentleman referred to an election manifesto. The Liberal Democrat election manifesto at the last election stated:
  The basic state pension will remain indexed to prices.
  That means that this year the Liberal Democrats would have increased the basic retirement pension by 75p. That is what the hon. Gentleman admitted to me in the debate on 8 June. It is sheer hypocrisy to describe as an insult what the Liberal Democrats themselves would have done.
  Mr. Webb: I am well aware that the right hon. Gentleman is rattled by the local success of the Liberal Democrats and is nervous about the subject of the debate. Earlier this year, I moved a motion in the House condemning the 75p pension rise as inadequate. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman was elsewhere. My right hon. and hon. Friends and I supported the motion. The right hon. Gentleman and his party voted that the pension rise was adequate, and the Conservative party abstained. That is what happened this year.
  The Labour promise was that pensioners would share fairly in the rise in national prosperity, so the least one would expect is that pensioners' share of national income from the Government would rise. For goodness' sake, doing better than the Tories is not much to ask, but they have not done so. Under this Government, the share of national income going to pensioners is lower than in the final year of the Conservative Government. No Labour-supporting pensioner who voted for this Government can have expected that to be the outcome.
  There is plenty more evidence of the disappointment caused by the Government on pensions. The Government's own figures show that the number of pensioners living in poverty rose by 400,000 in the first two years of the Labour Government. The Government will say, "Since then, we have done A, B and C." Is it acceptable for two years to go by, with hundreds of thousands more pensioners living in poverty, before the Government get around to doing something as an election approaches?
  Last December, we highlighted the figure for excess winter deaths—the number of deaths that exceed the expected figure. Those numbers are not large in much colder climates, but they reach extraordinary levels in this country. We have been trying to get the figures for last winter, but we are not being told them. My noble Friend Lord Russell asked for that information almost six weeks ago after one of our researchers phoned the Office for National Statistics and was told that the figures were ready but that we had to ask a parliamentary question to get them.
  I tabled a question to the Treasury a couple of weeks ago and was given a named-day answer. I was told that we would get the figures soon. We phoned today and were told that they were still being "worked on". The Government want to get the figures off the political agenda. They want to announce a big pension increase before they receive the flak. They are sitting on the information, which should be before the House now.
  As the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) knows, that is not the only information on which the Government are sitting. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman

  37
  will try to make that point during the debate. The Government Actuary's Department has been asked to produce a report on the funds available to the Government, the cost of higher pensions and the state of the national insurance fund. The Government Actuary wrote to the Southwark pensioners action group and said that his report was more or less ready at the end of September and would be finalised in the next few days and sent to the Government. I am grateful to the group for letting me know his comments. I have it on good authority that the report was sent to the Government. However, in a written answer today, the Minister said that it was being finalised. We bet it is being finalised!
  One imagines that the figure for the national insurance fund balance was so huge that the Government had to get some different figures. That is the problem. There is key evidence for the Government's overflowing finances and the Government's record on pensions, but the Government are sitting on it—so much for freedom of information.
  Mr. John Butterfill: Does the hon. Gentleman seriously suggest that the Government would try to manipulate the report of the Government Actuary's Department?
  Mr. Webb: Yes. [Interruption.] I make no bones about it; yes is the answer to the question. I believe that the Government were sent a report, which did not provide the answers that they wanted. I hope that the Minister will explain the delay in making known the contents, given that he has had the report for approximately a month. What extra questions has he asked the Government Actuary? What was the bottom line? Perhaps the Minister will tell us now; he has seen the report. The Government Actuary knew the figures at the end of September; I hope that the Minister will give us the figures.
  Mr. Paul Flynn: A little more than an hour ago, a journalist told me that the Department received the report on 6 October—the date it was expected—and that it would be published next Thursday. That is significant. That was the reason for a long point of order that you allowed me to make last week, Mr. Speaker. It is worrying that information crucial to deciding whether restoring the link is affordable has been kept from the House for a month.
  Mr. Webb: I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for his dogged pursuit of the matter. I have written to the Minister about it, and, so far as I know, I have not received a reply.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: Does my hon. Friend know that he is describing common Government practice? My right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and others have made the point that Governments publish independent reports only with their spin on them, rather than letting the public read and judge the reports, and responding to them alone. The freedom of information measure has not yet been amended at the other end of the building to deal with that because the Government continue to refuse to allow facts that are given to them to be free from Government constraint, and to insist that they should not be generally available.
  Mr. Webb: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Freedom of information is sometimes viewed as an
  38
  esoteric issue that is only for the cognoscenti, yet it clearly has practical consequences in the case of BSE, rail and pensions.
  A couple of administrative issues that relate to the way in which the Government have run pensions remain a shambles and are symptomatic of the lack of priority that is given to the needs of pensioners. The first is the infamous NIRS2 computer system. In the fourth year of the Parliament, the Government are still incapable of paying pensioners the right pension on the day that they are entitled to it. The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) has pursued the issue in the House.
  I tabled a question to the Treasury—I know that that is usually a triumph of hope over experience. I asked what progress there had been on the NIRS2 system. The Paymaster General replied:
  Following the well-documented problems … considerable progress has … been made and the Inland Revenue now regards the system as stable.—[Official Report, 31 October 2000; Vol. 355, c. 409W.]
  There was an answer to the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts), a Conservative spokesman, on 2 November. He asked
  how many pensioners are not receiving
  their pensions on time. The reply was as follows:
  As at 15 September 2000, Benefit Agency offices had 97,000 pension awards waiting to be reviewed.—[Official Report, 2 November 2000; Vol. 355, c. 573W.]
  If that is stable, is it being suggested that that is the way we can expect things to be indefinitely?
  I raised the issue of delays in state pension payments in an Adjournment debate in July 1999. I was assured that the problem would be sorted out by Christmas. Which Christmas? When will the problem be sorted out? How long will pensioners have to wait?
  It is not only the computer system that the Government seem unable to run. I mentioned earlier the position of widows' state earnings-related pension schemes.
  Mr. Butterfill: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the computer system, is he aware that each of the seven different types of benefit that are payable by the Benefits Agency has its own separate computer system, none of which is capable of interfacing with the other systems? Even if the Government get NIRS2 right, they cannot get the benefit right.
  Mr. Webb: The hon. Gentleman is right. There are fundamental issues that have gone unaddressed by consecutive Governments. I shall give some evidence of the scale of the problem. The Financial Times reports that
  there are 7m cases on the computer system with data missing today, compared with 2.5m in 1998.
  The situation is getting worse, not better, and the Government have failed to address it.
  I understand that Age Concern is taking the Government to the European courts on the issue of widows' SERPS. The Government have said that men—it is typically men—who inquired about SERPS rules in the early 1990s and were given duff information can claim protected pension rights, on condition that they can show that they
  would or might have acted differently if they had received the correct information.—[Official Report, 26 October 2000; Vol. 355, c. 166W.]

  39
  I have discussed the matter with some of the folk who have been through the personal pension mis-selling follow-up. Each case is painstakingly examined and the process is taking a long time to complete. However, the work is being done thoroughly. How can anyone prove that seven or eight years ago he saw a duff leaflet—[Interruption.] I think that the Minister said from a sedentary position, "He does not have to prove." The individual will have to say that he received a duff leaflet and show that he
  would have or might have acted differently.
  That person would have to produce the scheme of which he was a member at the time, the alternative schemes that were available and the situation and provision of the spouse. How will that be done? I believe that the Government are giving a misleading impression to the many men in this position—there are some women—who have been told that they will be protected. They will find out in a few years' time, when we know how the scheme will work, that they will not be protected. What they will have to prove will be impossible to prove. I hope that the Minister will clarify what exactly these men will have to provide.
  I shall set out the Liberal Democrat approach to the issue. First, I shall reflect briefly on the Government's strategy for pensioners. Almost certainly, "strategy" is completely the wrong word. It is a dog's breakfast. The Government have been making it up as they have gone along, and there is still a lack of coherence. A few months after the general election, there was a massive increase in the level of the means test, and a renaming, which is essential. It is the minimum income guarantee.
  We know that about 500,000 pensioners—
  Mr. Bill Rammell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Webb: No, I would like to make some progress. I will give way later.
  About 500,000 pensioners are not claiming the money to which they are entitled. When the Government said that they are prioritising the poorest pensioners, they have it wrong. The poorest pensioners are not those who claim their entitlement. There are about 500,000 with an entitlement who are living below the poverty line but do not claim.
  To be fair, the Government have ridden into battle. Thora Hird was brought forward to tackle the issue. The most recent figure that we have been given in a written answer—perhaps the Minister can update us—is that 30,000 of the 500,000 have now claimed their benefit. After the millions of pounds spent on publicity and on sending nearly 2 million letters to pensioners—at least three quarters of them did not have an entitlement—they have managed to increase by 30,000 the numbers of those who claim. Therefore, 470,000 pensioners are still going without. Aiming for a target of 500,000 and hitting 30,000 is a pretty poor performance. Is the Minister satisfied with that?
  40
  Reliance on the means test—which, of course, the Chancellor will increase massively on Wednesday—means missing the poorest pensioners in the land. The basic state pension reaches those pensioners like nothing else. That is why we believe in it.
  Mr. Rammell: The same Liberal Democrat manifesto as my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) mentioned commits the Liberal Democrats not only to increasing the pension in line with prices, but to introducing a top-up of the basic state pension to meet the needs of the poorest pensioners. How is that different from the minimum income guarantee?
  Mr. Webb: The hon. Gentleman is right. I am well aware of what the manifesto said. We committed ourselves to ensuring that the incomes of those pensioners would rise at least in line with earnings. That is the basis on which we will work, but we need to go beyond that.
  Mr. Rammell rose—
  Mr. Webb: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I will tell him what we want to do in addition.
  The minimum income guarantee sounded like a good idea. The Government thought that if they changed the name, came up with a new scheme and got Thora Hird involved, all would be well, but there was a problem. They realised that by creating a chasm between the basic pension and the means test, they were also creating a savings trap. They were discouraging pensioners from saving for the future and saying to today's pensioners who had already saved, "What was the point of saving? You've got your small pension, but all it's doing is disqualifying you from the minimum income guarantee."
  What do the Government do? Instead of closing the gap between the pension and the means test, they increase it. If the Chancellor does what is widely expected of him on Wednesday and puts a fiver on the pension and takes the MIG up to £90, he will increase the gap between the basic state pension and the means test, which will push more pensioners on to means testing. I recently asked how many extra pensioners will be means-tested as a result of the increase under the new package, and was told that nearly 100,000 extra pensioners are to be means-tested.
  The Government decided to do something else to deal with the hole that they had dug themselves into by creating a huge gap between the basic pension and the minimum income guarantee. Instead of putting the pension up, they decided to have another scheme called pensioner credit, but because it is so complicated, they have said that it will be years before they can introduce it.
  In the meantime, however, they needed something else, which I think the Chancellor called transitional measures. What transitional measures could the Government possibly take between now and 2003? Well, let us think: what is happening between now and 2003? Oh, an election, so the Government decide to introduce transitional measures which will put money on the basic state pension, the very thing that they have spent several years telling us is a bad idea.
  The Government have said that they could not possibly put money into the basic state pension because it is poorly targeted, but they have now decided to pay £150 to every pensioner regardless of means. It is a complete mess.

  41
  There is no coherence to the Government's approach. There are pension increases when an election is on the way, but only a 75p increase when it is not. That summarises the Government's approach. More schemes, more claim forms. Why does it have to be so complicated?
  Mr. Tom Levitt: If the hon. Gentleman wants all funding for pensioners to be given through the basic state pension, what would be an adequate amount to replace what he is describing as gimmicks and what we describe as targeting resources where they are most needed? How would he pay for that?
  Mr. Webb: The £150 winter fuel payment, to which I presume the hon. Gentleman's remarks also refer—he is not indicating whether that is so—goes to every pensioner household in the land, regardless of means. It is impossible to imagine anything more untargeted. It is so untargeted that his right hon. Friend the Minister of State will get it this winter.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Angela Eagle): He is not a pensioner.
  Mr. Bercow: He is only 59.
  Mr. Webb: I would not begrudge him £150—I am sure he needs it. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. There are far too many interventions from a sedentary position on both sides of the House, but particularly from Labour Members. The hon. Gentleman must be allowed to carry on with his remarks.
  Mr. Webb: There is a rag bag of schemes—take-up campaigns, publicity campaigns and new schemes to deal with the problems of the old schemes. Even the free television licence scheme is a shambles. Many other hon. Members may have had my experience of receiving a letter asking whether I am over 75 and want to claim. Plenty of pensioners have received cheques to refund the money that they spent on the licence. Many pensioners do not have bank accounts, so they are being asked to send the cheques back so that they can have some money to take to the post office. This lot could not organise—well, it is a complete shambles.
  What, then, is our priority? The hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Levitt) asked what should be done—
  Mr. Kaufman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Webb: No, I will not.
  The hon. Member for High Peak asked what level of pension we proposed, and I am keen to give him a specific figure. At our party conference a few weeks ago, I moved a motion on our new pensions policy, which our party has overwhelmingly endorsed. I can put on record precisely the policy on which we shall go into the next general election.
  We propose that those who benefited from the Lawson tax cuts of 1988 and are always on the top incomes, having done two, three, four or five times as well as those on average earnings—that is, those on more than
  42
  £100,000 a year—should be asked to pay more tax on their slice of income above £100,000. They, after all, are most able to do so. That would raise enough to allow us to put money on to the basic pension.
  We propose that, over and above the figure that the Chancellor announces for next April, there should be rises of a minimum of £5 a week for all newly retired pensioners, of £10 a week for those aged between 75 and 79, and of £15 a week for those aged 80 or more. Those figures are in addition to inflation, in addition to what the Chancellor announces, and in addition to the other payments that the pensioners currently receive.
  The payments will not be means-tested, but they will be intelligently targeted. That is the beauty of our proposals.
  Mr. Rammell rose—
  Mr. Webb: I think I had better ensure that I set out the entire policy.
  I mentioned an increase of £15 a week for those over 80. Why should the amount be tapered according to age? Because there is a strong link between the oldest pensioners and the poorest. I have received letters from pensioners up and down the land, and those in most need are often the oldest. Almost all are women, who are given a particularly raw deal in regard to both state and private pensions. We can give extra help to those in most need without forcing them through additional means-testing. That is the clear distinction between what the Liberal Democrats advocate and what the other parties advocate.
  Mr. Levitt: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Webb: No; I am about to finish my speech.
  The Conservatives propose to give people back their own money, plus 42p top whack. Labour proposes a pre-election giveaway. On Wednesday, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will stand up and do a Chris Tarrant routine: "£2.25 for inflation—but we don't want to give you that! £3.40 for the earnings link—but we don't want to give you that!" It will be £5; it will be £8. Who wants to be a millionaire?
  Labour will be throwing the money at pensioners because there is an election around the corner. Pensioners, however, will remember what the Government did when there was not an election around the corner. They will remember which was the only major party in the House that voted against the 75p—the Conservatives abstained. At the next election, when Conservative candidates show themselves to have undergone a damascene conversion to the basic state pension, they will need to be reminded that, given the chance to decide whether 75p was enough, they said "We do not really know." I note that the Conservative party declined to table an amendment to today's motion. Clearly, only one party is expressing serious opposition to the Government on pensions: the Liberal Democrats.
  We believe that a substantial increase is needed in the basic pension. The Chancellor has created a huge gulf between the pension and the means test, and on Wednesday, whatever he says, he will increase that gap. We believe that there should be fewer pensioners on means-tested benefits, not more. We believe in a decent basic state pension, and we believe that we will be the only party to go into the next election committed to that.
  4.44 pm
  The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Mr. Jeff Rooker): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "endorses the Government's approach to pensions and other policies for pensioners; notes that the Government has already committed £6½ billion more to pensioner benefits during this Parliament than was planned by the Conservatives, while ensuring that this additional expenditure is funded prudently and consistently with the Government's fiscal rules; strongly agrees with the Government that the basic state pension should be retained as the foundation of pension provision, and that most should be done for those pensioners who need most help through the Minimum Income Guarantee; supports the additional help for pensioner households, including winter fuel payments, which now gives them the equivalent of a further £3 a week and free TV licences for the over 75s, which were introduced from 1st November 2000; also supports the wide range of other measures taken by the Government for pensioners, the record investment in the National Health Service, free eye tests, help with home insulation and concessionary public transport fares and reductions in income taxation; and further agrees with the Government that the next priority should be to help pensioners with moderate savings and small occupational pensions to ensure that their thrift is rewarded and that they are able to share in the rising prosperity of the nation."
  I do not wish to be misunderstood, but I am one of the few Members of Parliament who can say with some certainty that I have a limited amount of time in which to listen to this drivel. The reality is that the speech of the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) was thirty minutes of drivel. I shall do my best to answer some of his points, some of his highly misleading statements and, indeed, the contemptible scare stories that were deliberately designed to frighten people outside the House.
  The hon. Gentleman started off with a point about age discrimination. I wholly agree with part of his speech, as age discrimination is rampant throughout society in this country and goes across the board, whether in jobs or the health service. It is not the easiest thing in the world to deal with that but, as the House knows, we have attempted to tackle it in employment on a voluntary basis. We also made it abundantly clear with the publication of the report "Winning the Generation Game" that we are considering going beyond a voluntary approach. The hon. Gentleman therefore made a valid point.
  The hon. Gentleman made some assertions on the share of the gross national product going to pensioners, but did not provide figures or Hansard references. He was on the verge of giving a quote or reference, but did not do so. I suspect that he got a quote from a parliamentary answer that appeared some months ago. I have read the motion and done Liberal Democrat Members the justice of taking it seriously, even if I cannot take the hon. Gentleman's speech seriously. I went back and looked for that parliamentary answer because I recall it—although parliamentary answers in March are not good up-to-date information in November.
  One should look at expenditure on pensioners, including retirement pensions, winter fuel payments, means-tested benefits and other benefits paid to pensioners, as well as concessionary TV licences, which came in last week, and compare the last year of the previous Government, 1996–97, with the planning year 2001–02, which begins next April. Even before the Chancellor's statement on Wednesday about what will
  44
  happen next April, the percentage of the gross national product spent on pensions is higher than it was in the last year of the Tory Government.
  Mr. Webb: What about the first four years?
  Mr. Rooker: It is no good the hon. Gentleman saying that, as he said that we have spent less. I am telling him that we have spent more, even before the Chancellor's statement on Wednesday.
  Mr. Webb: And now?
  Mr. Rooker: It is no good, the hon. Gentleman cannot go back and rewrite his speech.
  Mr. Matthew Taylor: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Rooker: No, I shall not, as I am going to make my speech in my own way and answer some of the drivel that we heard before it becomes folklore that is repeated by Liberal Democrat councillors and campaigners up and down the country.
  Mr. Flynn: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Rooker: In a moment, but first I want to put the matter on the record so that no one can go round using the hon. Gentleman's statement, as they will have the knowledge that I rebutted it with figures, which are 5.32 per cent. and 5.33 per cent. That is a small difference, but it is bigger than the hon. Gentleman said it was, even before this Wednesday's announcement.
  Mr. Flynn: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Rooker: In a moment. I may be able to save my hon. Friend time, although I shall gladly give way if he is not happy with what I say.
  The hon. Member for Northavon raised the matter of the Government Actuary's report and, in response to a question asked by the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill), said that the Government were seeking to manipulate it. I do not think that the Government Actuary would admit to that, and it is useful for me to put on the record the fact that we have answered parliamentary questions on the matter in the last couple of weeks. I do not resile in any way from what I said when the Government accepted Baroness Castle's amendment at the final stages of the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill last year. It is true to say that the Government Actuary is finalising his report on the effect on the national insurance fund of an earnings uprating of basic state retirement pension, and it will be published when it is completed. That is the phrase that we have used in parliamentary answers and in answers to letters from right hon. and hon. Members, but it is important to point out that, on Friday, Baroness Castle received a letter from the Government Actuary in which he answered some specific questions. He said:
  I can confirm that I submitted a report to the Secretary of State during the week ended 6 October, as indicated by Mr. Young in his letter to the Secretary of the Southwark Pensioners Action Group,

  45
  which is what the hon. Member for Northavon quoted. The Government Actuary went on:
  In my letter to the Secretary of State covering the report I made it clear that the report did not cover the Government's proposals for uprating in April 2001. In pursuance of my responsibilities with respect to the uprating orders I would either have to amend this report or lay a supplementary report detailing these effects.
  The Secretary of State wants Parliament to have all the relevant information before it debates the uprating orders.
  That is the commitment that the Secretary of State for Social Security made clear. Before Parliament is asked to approve the uprating orders, the House will have all the relevant information, including all the reports available. That commitment has been given and will be met. It is outrageous for hon. Members to imply that the Government are deceiving the House or that Ministers are lying.
  Mr. A. J. Beith: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Rooker: I have not finished the letter yet. It goes on:
  Accordingly he—
  that is, the Secretary of State—
  asked, and I—
  that is, the Government Actuary—
  have agreed, to complete the report by adding a further section to take account of the Government's proposals for uprating in April 2001. The Secretary of State has asked me to complete that section in time for him to lay the report when he sets out his proposals to Parliament next week.
  As everyone knows, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will make the pre-Budget report statement on Wednesday and the Secretary of State for Social Security will come to the House and make a statement on Thursday, so there is nothing secret. Nothing is being hidden. It is only once our plans for next April's uprating have been announced—they will not be announced in the main until Wednesday and in more detail on Thursday—that the report can be published.
  Therefore, it is not possible to publish the Government Actuary's report in a way that allows right hon. and hon. Members to have a meaningful debate, but when the House is asked to vote and to approve those orders—some time in the near future, subject to the business managers—the report will be available. It will be published on Thursday.
  What is the problem with that? The report could not conceivably be published beforehand. Any report that was half completed and put in the hands of hon. Members for today's debate would not take account of what will be proposed for next April. Surely, it is relevant for Members to have the full picture before we get involved in a debate and in decision making.
  Mr. Beith: May I suggest that, in any publicity the Government give to the figures to be announced on Wednesday and Thursday, any press release or briefing given by the Department contains the relevant passage from the Actuary's report, particularly if that briefing takes place before an announcement to the House?
  Mr. Rooker: Drivel plus. The report will be published in full. We are not in the position of manipulating the Government Actuary's report.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: You are delaying it.
  Mr. Rooker: We are not delaying it—it is not finished. It cannot be finished until the Government Actuary is given the figures that the Chancellor will announce on Wednesday.
  Mr. Beith: Has the Government Actuary been given the figures?
  Mr. Rooker: The right hon. Gentleman cannot expect me to answer that.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Again, we cannot have conversations from sedentary positions with the Minister at the Dispatch Box. If Members want to intervene, they should stand up in the normal way and the Minister may or may not give way.
  Mr. Rooker: As Liberal Democrat Members well know—and as they knew when they chose the subject of today's debate—they cannot have any information whatever on Wednesday's uprating statement. I can answer no questions today on Wednesday's statement.
  Mr. Matthew Taylor: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Rooker: No.
  Mr. Flynn: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Rooker: Yes; I promised my hon. Friend that I would.
  Mr. Flynn: Does my right hon. Friend recall telling the House, on 24 July, that the earliest opportunity to publish the Government Actuary's report would be in January 2001? Does he also recall that the Deputy Government Actuary—in his letter to the Southwark Pensioners Action Group, of which I am a member—said:
  The report on the financial impact of price and earnings indexation of the basic pension—
  which is what he was talking about—
  is now at a very advanced state and I am hoping to be able to submit it … next week.
  The Deputy Government Actuary's letter was written on 28 September, since when I have tabled five parliamentary questions—including one during the recess—on the subject. However, I can generously describe the answers given to me by my right hon. Friend the Minister as evasive. Would it not be better if he had replied to those questions with the type of answers that he has just given the House?
  Mr. Rooker: Indeed; that is precisely what I have done. As I said,
  The Government Actuary is currently finalising his report on the effect of the National Insurance Fund of an earnings uprating—
  of pensions—
  and it will be published when it completed.—[Official Report, 2 November 2000; Vol. 355, c. 575W.]

  47
  The report will not be completed until the Government Actuary has the figures that the Chancellor will use on Wednesday. That is precisely what I said in parliamentary answers to my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) and to other hon. Members.
  I should address some of the other issues raised in the debate, including those on administration. I do not deny that NIRS2 is a problem that has not been solved. However, I am not going to review the history of NIRS2 or the preceding years in which competitive tendering was used. I should add that the word "stable", when used in relation to information technology systems, does not mean that those systems are 100 per cent. perfect.
  Each month, about 50,000 plus people become pensioners. Currently, the system is not dealing correctly with payments to about 2,300 of those people, which is not satisfactory. Also, there is still a backlog of information from NIRS2 to the Benefits Agency. We are, however, working very quickly to correct the situation.
  I do not think that it is a secret that the Department of Social Security is not proud of our IT systems, which are rubbish. Over the years, underinvestment in IT and purchase of the cheapest systems have brought us to the current sorry state. Although I shall not blame all that on the legacy that we inherited, everything cannot be put right in three years. We are purchasing and designing new systems. Had hon. Members examined some of the finer points of detail of the spending review 2000, they would have seen that more money is being made available to obtain those systems.
  In his remarks on inherited SERPS, the hon. Member for Northavon showed himself to be a disgrace to his party and to the House. By refusing to accept that the Government have accepted, from the ombudsman and from the Public Accounts Committee, that the burden of proof is on the Government and not on the individual, he sought deliberately to create a disturbance among the public. Our difficulty in designing a scheme is that the burden of proof is on the Government, not on the individual. It is for the individual only to make a claim, subject to procedures that we will be introducing for debate.
  The hon. Gentleman knows that it is untrue that individuals will have to satisfy the burden of proof, and it is dishonourable and disgraceful for him to repeat that statement on the Floor of the House.
  Mr. Webb: The Minister is getting extremely carried away. It is a serious issue about which many pensioners have contacted me, because they are concerned about the Minister's utterances on it. I think that everyone agrees that those pensioners saw duff literature. Will he clarify whether the Government will seek to disprove their claims that they might have taken different action, or will their assertion that they might have taken different action be sufficient?
  Mr. Rooker: The House can debate that when it debates the regulations—[Interruption.] No; the burden of proof is on the Government, not on claimants. I cannot express the position any clearer than that.
  48
  The hon. Member for Northavon is trying to twist my words. Claimants do not have to prove anything. They do not have to have documents; they only have to make a claim. They have to fill in a form and answer some questions. The onus of proof is on the Government, not on claimants. I have said that since March, and it is entirely false and disingenuous of the hon. Gentleman to try to assert otherwise.
  In his speech, the hon. Member for Northavon talked about it taking years to introduce the pension credit. A few sentences later, he slipped in the date of 2003. We hope to get the pension credit up and running in two years, and we shall publish detailed information on that. As we have not yet published that information, and there is not much on the subject in the public domain—other than the speech of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security—the hon. Gentleman cannot say that that information is complicated. A consultation document on the subject will be published very shortly.
  I am not sure what the hon. Member for Northavon said about his party's policy on the minimum income guarantee, because I was adding up the figures. He can make assumptions, based on press speculation—I cannot—about Wednesday's announcement. However, it did not seem that pensioners aged between 65 and 75 would end up with a pension that reached even the present MIG level of £78, let alone our £90 proposal. I say to pensioners who are now on £78.45p that it is not a princely sum—it is a safety net, and one cannot have a comfortable life on it. However, before April, the figure was £75; there has been an increase of £3.45. By next April, the figure will be £90—an increase of almost £12 a week. I do not hear many cheers from the Liberal Democrats about that increase for the poorest pensioners. I assume that they will vote against it, as they did with regard to the help for pensioners earlier this year.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Rooker: No, I will not. Let me finish this point.
  The hon. Member for Northavon seemed to imply that the winter fuel help would disappear. From his calculations, I thought that it had disappeared. We know that it would disappear under the Tories' plans, and they have the brass neck to complain about us not getting money to men aged between 60 and 64 who have been working when they plan to take that money off them anyway.
  This month, the over-75s start to get their free television licences. This week, the cheques start to go out for the winter fuel allowances. Those are not celebrated by Opposition parties. All they do is come here to whinge and moan. There will be good news later this week and we will be able to rebut in detail many of the assertions made by the hon. Member for Northavon.
  The hon. Member for Northavon has not outlined to the House a cohesive strategy for pensioners. He let it slip that the Liberal Democrats' policy would be paid for by taxing those on £100,000. Earlier this year, they said that they would pay for the policy by abolishing SERPS—the additional pension. We have not heard that rebutted, so our assumption must be that the Liberal Democrats would still have to abolish SERPS to make their policy work. Those who have been on average earnings for the past 20-odd years will get SERPS payments of £70 a week. The Liberal Democrats are offering to take that away. That is more drivel.
  5.2 pm
  Mrs. Jacqui Lait: I am glad to follow the Minister, but I hope that I do not get so excited. As all will be revealed on Wednesday, the Minister must feel—I have a great deal of sympathy with him—a bit like the emperor without any clothes.
  I agree with the Minister's analysis of the speech by the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb), which was a classic Liberal Democrat speech—holier-than-thou, sanctimonious to the nth degree and of breathtaking cheek, particularly in the attempt to exempt his party from any electioneering. His speech was guaranteed to be attractive to a certain part of the electorate, without taking any responsibility. Suggestions have come today from the hon. Member for Northavon and, last week, from the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) in Westminster Hall, on how much the Liberal Democrats intend to give pensioners. I cannot think of a better, or more expensive, way of appealing to one particular, but very large, group of the electorate.
  It might be worth while to go through some of the information that we elicited from the Liberal Democrats in the debate in Westminster Hall on the exact cost of their proposals.
  The hon. Member for Northavon set out what he thought was the cost of the £5, £10 and £15 hike, and he maintains that it can be covered by the 10 per cent. hike in the higher rate of tax for people earning more than £100,000. My calculations show that that hike would raise only £2.6 billion, and that the cost would be £4.5 billion.
  Mr. Paul Burstow: No, £3.1 billion.
  Mrs. Lait: Well, I did not want to burden the House with figures, but I am willing to enlighten the Liberals as, judging by the puzzled face of the hon. Member for Northavon, they have not done their sums.
  My calculations show that £5 a week for all pensioners would cost £2.8 billion; that the cost of the extra £5 for pensioners aged between 75 and 79 would be £500 million; and that the further £5 for the over-80s would be £1.2 billion: a total of £4.5 billion. The Liberals are £1.9 billion adrift on the total that they plan to spend.
  Last week in Westminster Hall, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam declared that the Liberal Democrats' target was to offer single pensioners £90 a week and couples £135 a week. That was all hedged around with phrases about growth in the economy and not reaching that stage in one go. In fact, growth in the economy is usually linked to earnings. Despite the hon. Gentleman trying to obfuscate the situation, we know that the Liberal Democrat conference chucked out that proposal, possibly because the delegates did not want to frighten their supporters with the consequences, which, as worked out by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research—not a body known to favour Conservative philosophy—would be to put 5p on the basic rate of income tax.
  The Liberal Democrats have adjusted their figure, as we heard last Tuesday. I was surprised that the hon. Member for Northavon did not use the figure, because it represented such a clear commitment and, given how much they are pandering to the pensioner vote, I should have thought that they would want to re-emphasise it.
  50
  However, the total cost of increasing the basic state pension to £90 for single pensioners and £135 for couples is £8.5 billion. I am prepared to subtract from that the £2.6 billion that we have already agreed would be raised by the tax hike, so that we get a difference of £5.9 billion, which is the equivalent of an increase of 2.3p in the basic rate of tax. Or are the Liberals planning to increase the higher rate of tax on those earning more than £100,000 to the 73p in the pound that I have calculated it would cost? Those of us of a certain age remember what that did to public finances in the 1970s.
  We have heard a speech of such breathtaking electioneering cheek that the House can treat the suggestions in it with the contempt that they deserve and get back to the real world of trying to help pensioners.
  I am concerned about a broader matter mentioned in the motion: long-term care policy. Most of us would agree that paying for nursing care in England and Wales is a recipe for bureaucracy. Anyone who has had anything to do with defining what is nursing care and what is not will know the difficulties.
  In recent days, we have seen emerging the very difficulty that we warned about all along when we were debating the establishment of the Scottish Parliament. The Scots are being promised that all their care costs will be covered. They are in charge of their own budget and can make their own decisions; the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish people have to pay for it. We can clearly see a battle royal taking place between the Scottish and English Executives—between No. 10 and the Scottish Parliament. Scots are able to vote on English and Welsh issues but not the other way around. We will also have the dubious pleasure of watching those with a dual mandate having to vote against their Scottish parliamentary colleagues and for the London Government, or for the Scottish Parliament and against the London Government. It will be most interesting to see what happens when people who sit in both Parliaments have to vote.
  Mr. Burstow: Is it now the Conservative party's official position in this House that personal care should be free on the basis of assessment of need, as the royal commission recommends?
  Mrs. Lait: The point that I was making, which the hon. Gentleman obviously missed, was about the constitutional position known to many as the West Lothian question, which is the key to the illogicality of devolution. What happens on long-term care, as the hon. Gentleman should know, is the responsibility of the Department of Health, and some elements of social security may well be included. If he is not careful, he will get the same lecture on annuities as he got last Tuesday. He gave me the opportunity to give it then, and I am happy to give it again now, but I know that a number of Back Benchers wish to contribute to this debate on pensioners' income.
  Many of us have seen the statistics arising from the Government's annual poverty report, which show that, since 1997, the number of pensioners in poverty has increased from 28 per cent. to 30 per cent.—[Interruption.] Indeed, it is not mentioned by the Government. Their attempts to change it—although who knows what will happen on Wednesday—appear to be falling on stony ground. We still see pensioners losing out, as has been discussed, from the minimum income guarantee.

  51
  We have all seen the Thora Hird advertisements on television. On my way here today, listening to BBC Radio Kent, I heard someone from the Benefits Agency explaining the minimum income guarantee and how it will work. I know that many letters have gone out to pensioners who could claim. From surgery experience, I am aware that some have still not received their letter or, if they have, that they thought that it was junk mail and chucked it in the bin. However, this past week has seen the figures so far emerging and they have not been a pretty sight.
  In last Tuesday's debate, the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, the hon. Member for City of York (Mr. Bayley), told us that 500,000 people have inquired about the campaign. However, it has taken parliamentary questions to extract the answers as to how many have been successful. On 31 October, we were told that 24,746 claimants had been successful so far and that 22,988 had been unsuccessful. Therefore, barely 10 per cent. of eligible people have replied; only half are getting anything, and the rumours are that they are finding the sums pretty small. I would be most interested to know the largest and smallest sums awarded so far, and the average payment.
  Mr. Rooker: Because of the lack of time, I did not deal earlier with the take-up. The last time that I looked at the average figure of those successfully claiming, it was just over £20 a week. Furthermore, not all the 2.3 million letters have gone out; they are still being sent out at the rate of 30,000 a day.
  Mrs. Lait: I am very pleased to have the average figure. We knew that the letters were still going out. However, more significantly, only 10 per cent. of people are replying at present. As anyone in marketing knows, 10 per cent. is a jolly good return. I congratulate the Government on attracting replies from 10 per cent. of people; a marketing company would consider 1 per cent. a very good return. However, 10 per cent. is still scandalously low, and I hope that more people will be able to claim that to which they are entitled.
  People are losing out in other ways as well. We heard that a million people are still waiting for winter fuel payments. The Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle), said:
  all payments should be issued by the end of September.—[Official Report, 11 April 2000; Vol. 354, c. 271W.]
  Perhaps we could be updated on that as well, because we understand that a million people are still waiting.
  It is worth stating that the length of time taken to deal with the problem has increased. However, the then Pensions Minister, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. Member for East Ham (Mr. Timms), predicted that, by the end of the year,
  everybody would have received all of the benefits, plus any compensation …—[0fficial Report, 26 July 1999; Vol. 336, c. 97.]
  The Minister of State said that 2,300 new cases a month were emerging. I should be most grateful to him if he would confirm that figure because those cases are in addition to the 100,000 people who are still waiting.
  Mr. Rooker: There was an argument about whether the system is stable. I shall not refer to my folder, but I
  52
  said that being stable does not mean working at 100 per cent. accuracy. The system is not 100 per cent. accurate at present. About 650,000 people become pensioners each year—50,000 plus a month—but 2,300 are not dealt with accurately. I saw that figure this morning. However, that does not mean that they do not get their pensions. Some pensions are calculated on the basis of what the figure may be and involve an overpayment or an underpayment.
  Mrs. Lait: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I accept that the word "stable" does not mean 100 per cent. accuracy, but I take that to mean that, of the new pensioners who can claim SERPS payments, approximately 2,300 a month are new cases. It is useful to have that information on the record. Taking into account all such matters—NIRS2, MIG and the winter fuel payment—it is interesting that 2.5 million people are awaiting the pleasure of the older person's champion, otherwise known as the Secretary of State. To add insult to injury, it now appears, from coverage in Pensions Week, that the reorganisation at the Department of Social Security has led to a shortage of pensions advisers, so much so that the Department has asked the National Association of Pension Funds to do its work for it.
  We, and all other hon. Members, await with interest the Chancellor's statement on Wednesday, although I assume that information on the pensioners credit will be given on Thursday. We hope that the consultation document will be published on Wednesday, so that we have time to study it before Thursday's statement and can provide a relatively reasoned response, which we may otherwise not be able to give. I congratulate the Government on the fact that, unusually for them, they have so far failed to leak what is in that document or, indeed, to spin it.
  Precise details about the pensioners credit are scarce, but I cannot understand how a pensioners credit and the transitional arrangements could be introduced without some sort of means test. Thousands of pensioners may have to fill in tax forms, as opposed to income support forms, but that still constitutes a means test.
  Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: Does the hon. Lady regard herself as being subject to a means test when she completes her tax return?
  Mrs. Lait: The pensioners credit has a great similarity to the working families tax credit and, as the hon. Gentleman will know, the tax credit is merely income support provided by another Department, and the pensioners credit will, in effect, be the same—hence a means test will be involved.
  We shall make our own judgment of the Government's proposals when they are produced on Wednesday and Thursday, and so will the pensioners of the United Kingdom. To date, they and we are unimpressed by the Government's treatment of them.
  5.19 pm
  Mr. Eddie O'Hara: Our debate so far has been combative. As the chairman of the all-party group on ageing and older people, I shall refrain from making party-political points. Clearly, other hon. Members in the Chamber will make enough of them.
  I pay tribute to the great deal that the Government have already done for pensioners. I recognise that the £6.5 billion allocated to pensioners in benefits and in kind

  53
  during this Parliament is considerably more than the cost of uprating pensions in line with earnings. In view of my constituency's demography, the majority of pensioners there will benefit from the Government's policy of targeting the poorest pensioners.
  I am pleased by the increase in the threshold for payments of the minimum income guarantee and the pension credit for pensioners with second pensions and modest savings. Those measures go some way towards addressing my concerns, which I have expressed on several occasions in the Chamber, about those pensioners who are just above the income support and minimum income guarantee thresholds, of whom there are many in my constituency. They are typical blue-collar workers with a small occupational pension from, for example, Plessey or British Insulated Calendar Cables.
  On the other hand, I want to discuss several areas in which the Government have not yet quite got their approach right and to urge them to do so in future. My right hon. Friend the Minister commented on the state earnings-related pension scheme, and I do not envy the Government their problem with SERPS. It was not of their devising, although they have the unenviable task of having to sort it out. I hope that my right hon. Friend was right to say that the onus of proof will lie with the Government. I have previously expressed to him my concerns about the fact that any system of remedying the mess that is based on justification is designed to be inequitable and perhaps to disfavour those in most need. We shall see.
  The 75p uprating of pensions in line with inflation last year will be discussed extensively in this debate. It was entirely logical to those in the Treasury who crunch numbers in the abstract, but it was psychologically crazy to anyone who knows and cares about real pensioners. On previous occasions, I referred to the prism—it might be a distorting mirror—through which pensioners will continue to view the Government's pensions policy. That is sad, in view of the fact that their policy contains many generous provisions.
  The argument about whether pensions should be uprated in line with earnings is complex. The Government maintain that that would be unsustainable in the medium to long term, and that the concept is outmoded because, for many pensioners, the state pension is not the main element of their retirement income. I understand the Government's concern that an increase across the board would put pension payments into the pockets of those who least need them. They are better targeted at those who need them most, but it is surely not beyond the wit of the Treasury to find a means to claw back some money from those who do not need it.
  I disagree with the suggestion of the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) that clawing back through the tax system or the allowances system involves means-testing. It does not involve means-testing, as I understand it. Everyone who pays tax has to have an assessment, but those who pay large amounts in tax commonly have different reasons for being sensitive to means-testing than do those many pensioners who simply find it demeaning.
  Mrs. Lait: The pensioners' credit is for people who have a small occupational pension and who do not already pay tax. Many of them will have to fill in some type of form—whether a tax or an income support form.
  Mr. O'Hara: I do not agree with the hon. Lady that that equates to means-testing. I was referring to those
  54
  people whom the Government rightly do not want to receive pension benefits that are better targeted elsewhere. Such people do not fill in their tax return; they have an accountant to do it for them.
  Pensioners regard the pension to which they have contributed not as a benefit or a handout but as an entitlement for which they have paid through their contributions. We are advised that there is a surplus in the national insurance fund that could provide an increase in line with earnings—at least in the medium term. However, in the absence of the Government Actuary's report, it is difficult to make a judgment on that matter, although I note the Minister's reasons for the delay in publishing the report.
  Surely there is room for some policy improvement—on increasing pensions in line with earnings rather than with prices. The minimum income guarantee is the Government's own estimate of the minimum decent income for a pensioner. In the medium term, could we not at least move towards that as the acceptable amount for the basic pension? At the least, could we not have a discretionary increase in excess of inflation? I look forward to hearing good news on that in the autumn statement, although I realise that the Minister cannot be drawn on that at present.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: As this is the last relevant parliamentary debate to be held before the Chancellor makes his announcement on Wednesday and before the subsequent debates on its social security aspects, is the view of the all-party group on ageing and older people that it would be preferable for fewer people to be in receipt of means-tested pensions or pension top-ups and for more people to receive a higher non-means-tested basic allowance? That is certainly the view that pensioners of all parties have put to me. Everyone understands that they may have to fill in a tax return and pay tax, but surely it would be a bad result if this week's announcements meant that more people were means-tested.
  Mr. O'Hara: I hesitate to speak for other members of the group, but my view is that there should be a more generous basic pension, across the board, even if it cannot at present be increased in line with earnings.
  To help pensioners to share in the prosperity of our country—a laudable aim in the Government's manifesto for the previous general election—is not an act of charity. When pensioners were earning, they contributed to that prosperity. They worked and, in many cases, fought to lay the foundations for the prosperity that we enjoy. What better argument could there be for the Government to show a little more generosity towards older pensioners—those aged between 75 and 80—in the settlement to be announced in the autumn statement?
  5.28 pm
  Mr. John Butterfill: None of the parties can look back on their record on pensions with any great credit. The Liberal Democrats made an attack on the Conservatives' record when we were in office. Under Baroness Thatcher, it is certainly true that we broke formally the link with earnings, although during our period in office the increase was slightly higher than inflation—about 10 per cent. higher. Furthermore, we introduced the winter fuel allowance—[Interruption.]—

  55
  Yes, we did. I point out to the Minister of State, Department of Social Security that the real link with earnings was first broken when his party was in office—under a Lib-Lab coalition—although the Minister himself, to his great honour, was extremely critical of his Government when he was a young Back Bencher; the figures were fiddled and he said that the earnings link had been broken.
  The problem is that all parties in the House, knowing that it would never be possible to give pensioners a full pension that would sustain them throughout their retired lives, have somehow connived, particularly at election time, to hint that that might some day be possible. No one has done that more than the Liberal Democrats with their series of wholly unsustainable and inadequately costed proposals that they know that they will never have the opportunity to implement. They know that all they are doing is putting out fodder for their Focus magazines.
  Mr. Webb: We have tabled interminable questions on these issues. The revenue from a 50p rate in a full year is £3.1 billion. The cost of our proposals—I can show the hon. Gentleman the written answers—net of savings on tax on means-tested benefits is £3.1 billion. What more can we do than that?
  Mr. Butterfill: I prefer the figures that my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) gave. Even if the hon. Gentleman were correct, he is saying that his proposal is affordable. Even if were affordable in the short term, it would not be affordable, as he well knows, in the long term. Indeed, the present system is not sustainable in the long term. Anyone who has studied the issue sensibly and for a length of time—many Members on both sides of the House have done so—knows that the present system is not sustainable in the long term because of a demographic time bomb. People are living longer and not a state in the western world is capable of sustaining a system that is wholly unfunded in the way that ours is. It is a pay-as-you-go scheme that will never be affordable in the long term.
  Mr. Flynn rose—
  Mr. Butterfill: I give way to the hon. Gentleman, because he knows much about these matters.
  Mr. Flynn: I refer to a booklet entitled "The Age of Entitlement" that was published by the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts). He refers to the myth of the demographic time bomb, which was used by the Conservative party when it was in government to wreck the national insurance system. In addition, the evidence given to the Select Committee on Social Security made it clear that the funds in the national insurance system now are enough to restore the link for the next five years and will be enough for the period after that if national insurance funding increases by just the rate of inflation.
  Mr. Butterfill: The hon. Gentleman studies these matters carefully and he will know that there are many conflicting views. The majority view, which is expressed by all sorts of experts on the subject—I have read as many publications as the hon. Gentleman—is that the present
  56
  system is not sustainable. Even if it were, it would be sustainable at a level of pension that would never be adequate for people to live on without additional savings of their own or the provision of means-tested benefits by the state. That is the point that I want to make. We must try to get away from the politicking and down to the reality of what can and should be done by all of us on an all-party basis to provide a sustainable decent standard of living for pensioners in future.
  There are three groups in society. The young have inherited a wonderful economic climate and will have the opportunity during their lifetimes to make themselves rich beyond the aspirations of any of us here. Most of us probably represent the middle group and then there are the significantly elderly—particularly those aged over 75—who fought in the last war and grew up in a period of austerity. They did not have the opportunities that we, and certainly the young, have had to save for their retirements. If we are going to make a change, we should single out the elderly and accept that we have an inter-generational responsibility to pay them, as of right, a decent pension.
  For the intermediate group—that includes most of us; certainly anybody between the ages of 40 and 65, and perhaps those between the ages of 40 and 70—we should say that the present system will continue. We should tell them, "You should have been able to save something for your retirement. It is reasonable to assume that you might do so and, therefore, you will not be entitled to more than the present system provides." For those who fall through the net, there should be the prospect of some means-tested safety net.
  Most people under the age of 40 view with horror the idea of having to live on a state retirement pension—and quite rightly so. They know that they must save for their old age and are quite prepared to do so. We should make that far more possible for them. At the moment, a series of incentives—many of them introduced by my party—is proving inadequate to persuade people to save.
  The Government stakeholder pension scheme benefits nobody. The poorest group of people, whom the Government are keen to encourage, will find it better to be on the minimum guaranteed income and, frankly, it would be pension mis-selling to sell them a stakeholder policy. The richer group have better savings vehicles that are not encumbered by the ludicrous rules that currently apply to pension saving. Therefore, only a small group of people in the middle could benefit from stakeholder pensions, but they are not those whom the Minister of State and his party wanted to target.
  Eventually, the answer must be to look at what has happened in other states, such as Australia, Argentina and Singapore. We need a compulsory retirement scheme into which everyone will have to pay. The young should be told that there will not be anything else and that they must save for their retirement. Then, we should concentrate on looking after the group of people to whom we all have an obligation—those who were not able to save during their working lives—and pay them a decent pension.
  5.37 pm
  Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: Given that about a third of my electorate are retired, my concern is that we need to do better—even than we have already. I know, however, having gone around the constituency

  57
  just recently, that many of my constituents already recognise just how much better things are than they were three years ago.
  I do not think that people will forget that, in 18 years, the previous Government badly short-changed pensioners. Many will recall the hardship that pensioners suffered without relief. Even when the economy was going well during the many years of rising prosperity, there was nothing for pensioners beyond a basic increase in line with prices. That makes it clear where the Conservatives have been coming from. That record will not be forgotten; pensioners were not born yesterday.
  When I faced the electorate in 1997, not one of my political opponents proposed anything more than an uprating of pensions in line with prices. That was true of the Liberal Democrat candidate, as it was of everyone else. However, because things have gone well, the Government have done better than could possibly have been envisaged. Benefits such as the minimum income guarantee, the uprating in line with wages, fuel payments and free television licences for older pensioners could not have been expected in 1997. Those things are appreciated, but I acknowledge, as I am sure many hon. Members would, that pensioners need and want more.
  I have spoken to a number of pensioners over past weeks and found that, on analysis of their incomes, very few regard themselves as worse off under the Labour party. In fact, I have found quite the reverse. Pensioners get excited at public meetings, but when I had the opportunity to offer to write a cheque for the difference to anyone who was worse off, no one came forward. That is not to suggest that the pensioner's lot is sufficient, but they are better off under Labour than they were three years ago, and certainly better off than they would have been under the policies of the other two major parties.
  My concern centres on the way in which things could get worse—indeed, they could only get worse if the Conservatives were to have the opportunity they seek—for the one third of my pensioner constituents who are on or near the level of the minimum income guarantee. They would lose from the minimum income guarantee no longer being upgraded according to wages, as well as on the winter fuel payment and free television licences. Happily, most of my constituents have seen though the Conservatives' hall of mirrors and are unlikely to fall for it. It is by one's deeds that one is judged and the Tories have a long way to go, especially among our experienced constituents, who remember them for what they did, not for what they say.
  For all their good will, the Liberals never promised more than Labour has provided—how could they, when they reject the means by which the Labour Government have delivered an economy that is able to create options to pay more? If the Liberals early spending commitments had been implemented and their refusal to back the new deal had been accepted, we would be looking, not at a budget surplus this year, but at a deficit that would make it impossible to help those to whom we want to give priority.
  It is important that we abandon the dangerous idea, often mentioned by hon. Members, of linking pensions with national insurance contributions. I had the Library calculate current pensions based on 40 years' national insurance contributions at the basic rate. The result would be a pension of £40 a week—of course, that pension
  58
  would be upgraded according to inflation, but it is significantly less than is already paid. When the Tories talk about privatisation, with private pensions replacing the state system, we must remember that pensioners have made a wider contribution to our society, for which they should be rewarded; that contribution is more than merely the national insurance contributions they made, which would pay far less than even the current meagre pension.
  Mr. Flynn: Does my hon. Friend recall that there was a substantial sum known as the Treasury supplement which was paid into the national insurance fund from 1911 to the mid-1980s, to which all those who are pensioners today have contributed? Therefore, one cannot measure the pension only using national insurance contributions; one has to take into account the sums paid through the Treasury supplement, which was interrupted in the late 1980s by the Conservatives.
  Mr. Foster: I accept my hon. Friend's point that pensioners have made a contribution greater than their national insurance contributions alone. My point is that, often, the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives imply that national insurance contributions alone could pay for a pension greater than that which pensioners now receive. That is far from the truth. If the sums involved in national insurance contributions were paid into a private scheme, as the Conservatives would have us do, the resulting pension would be far smaller than the one that is currently paid. Their calculations are invalid. Whether or not they have been able to contribute through taxation, people's broader contribution to society should be taken into account.
  I strongly support the Government's desire to improve the lot of all pensioners while simultaneously targeting the greatest benefits on those in greatest need. However, I believe that there is a weakness in the way we attract claims from those who are deserving of extra help. The problem is that we have mixed up supplementary pensions with the income support system: there is a significant difference between those who require temporary assistance while awaiting employment opportunities, for example, and those who have completed their years of toil and now look forward to security in retirement.
  The supplementary pension that is sometimes necessary to produce a minimum guaranteed income should not be referred to as "income support". It is a supplementary pension for which people have worked and which they deserve. The perceived degradation of older people claiming an income support payment could easily be alleviated by changing the name of the payment—perhaps by using the term "supplementary pension" to refer to that special payment applied only to older people who require extra help.
  I do not accept, as is sometimes suggested by the Government in answer to questions, that legislation is required to change the terminology on a form. That could be done without a great deal of effort. When the next version of the form is printed, perhaps the heading could be something other than "Income Support".
  I commend the Government for their work in targeting groups that may be eligible, but while the term "income support" persists, there will be those who refuse to claim it. Many pensioners, rightly or wrongly, associate income support with folk sitting outside McDonald's with their dogs and their begging bowls. That is not an image that pensioners are prepared to accept.

  59
  I plead with the Government to look again at the administrative apparatus for delivering the minimum income pension. That should refer to a minimum retirement income, and the difference between other incomes and that level should be made up by a retirement supplement.
  Terminology is important. To some extent pensioners have been aided by the introduction of telephone claims, but they will not fill in forms that warn of the dire consequences of fraud. More work needs to be done on that. However well-meaning Department of Social Security staff are, specially trained staff are needed to work with the claims of elderly people. Pensioner applicants are not skivers and must not be made to feel uncomfortable when they make their claims.
  Much has been done, but much remains to be done for our pensioners. A change in the name of that additional benefit would make an enormous difference to many people in my constituency and elsewhere.
  5.46 pm
  Mr. Paul Burstow: The hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Foster) referred to the Liberal Democrats' commitment to additional investment in public services early in the life of the present Parliament. Hon. Members on both sides will recall that on a number of occasions we highlighted what we believed to be weaknesses in public services that needed early investment. It is only recently that the Prime Minister has acknowledged those weaknesses and the fact that the Government failed to invest in the early days of their Administration to address them. For that reason, we continue to have NHS winter crisis after winter crisis.
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Burstow: Briefly, as I must make progress.
  Mr. Corbyn: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman's point about investment in the public services. In a spare moment, will he ask Islington Liberal Democrats why they are closing day centres for the elderly, other day centres and luncheon clubs?
  Mr. Burstow: One of the reasons, I suspect, is that the Government have decided that the data changes that would lead to an increase in standard spending assessments for London this year will not come through. Consequently, London will lose substantial resources. I imagine that that causes concern to the hon. Gentleman as well. I shall bear in mind what he said and find out whether that is, indeed, the case.
  I return to the subject on which I intended to speak—long-term care. At the last Labour party conference before the 1997 general election, the then Leader of the Opposition, now the Prime Minister, gave this pledge:
  I don't want to live in a country where the only way pensioners can get long term care is by selling their homes.
  That was clear and unambiguous, and it was deservedly welcomed by many across the country. It was a promise to act to end the grotesque spectacle of the debt collector pursuing the dementia sufferer for care home fees.
  60
  Three years on and one royal commission later, what is left of the Prime Minister's promise? Nothing but bitter disappointment and a sense of betrayal among many people outside. What do the Government propose to put in place of the Prime Minister's pledge to the Labour party conference in 1997? The sop offered by Government is that nursing care will be free in future. Legislation will be needed to bring that about, and it will not start until 2003 at the earliest.
  Everyone in the country, and many of my constituents to whom I have spoken directly about the matter, thought that nursing care was free anyway. They are puzzled about why the Government intend to give them the great gift of free nursing care.
  The message about the Government's views on long-term care is plain. Care is free for those who have a medical condition from which they can recover. That applies to every aspect of the care: hotel accommodation, food, personal care and nursing care costs. Everything is free, and so it should be. That is part of our commitment to a universal, free health-care system. However, care for those who suffer from a chronic medical condition such as Parkinson's disease or dementia comes with a bill attached. Liberal Democrats are clear and unequivocal about our commitment to making personal care free on the basis of an assessment of need.
  Mr. Rammell: If the commitment is clear and unequivocal, why does the Liberal Democrat alternative Budget for 2000 include only a costed commitment to pay immediately for nursing care?
  Mr. Burstow: If the hon. Gentleman had read on, he would have realised that we are also committed to funding all personal care. It is clearly stated in the same document. During our previous debate on the subject, the hon. Gentleman did not have a copy of the alternative Budget. I am glad that he now has it. He can read that it goes on to refer to a first step towards implementing the royal commission's proposals for free personal care.
  Mr. Rammell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Burstow: I shall not give way because I have answered the hon. Gentleman's point. The royal commission's recommendations are also clear. It was right to recommend that personal care should be free.
  With chronic health conditions, it is difficult to predict or anticipate the way in which the risk will fall on an individual, and whether someone will need long-term care. Consequently, the costs fall disproportionately on a few people. We believe that the costs of long-term care should be spread across the whole community and ultimately met through taxation. The royal commission also took that view after undertaking the inquiry that the Government requested to ascertain the way in which we can construct a fair, effective and sustainable system for financing long-term care. Unfortunately, the Government chose to miss the opportunity of accepting the royal commission's proposals. Instead, they plumped for short-term fix. We have had what could be described as an adjournment of the debate on long-term care. The Government will return to it because they must do that.
  Dr. Jenny Tonge: Does not my hon. Friend agree that the Government discriminate against

  61
  people who are mentally ill through their policies on long-term care, which affect sufferers of Alzheimer's disease and Parkinson's disease, which becomes a mental illness? That is grossly unfair.
  Mr. Burstow: My hon. Friend is right about such discrimination. Their policies are also another form of age discrimination. It means that many people, who rightly expect that their nursing and personal care costs would be covered if they suffered from a chronic condition such as dementia, know that nothing will change as a result of the NHS plan. The Government's announcement will leave in place the postcode lottery of care that existed under the Conservatives for years. It will create new anomalies when the new definition of nursing care is interpreted.
  The NHS plan leaves in place the perverse incentives that encourage local authorities to utilise residential care rather than help older people who remain in their homes. It leaves unanswered a fundamental question: where does the balance lie between an individual's personal responsibility and that of the state for meeting care costs? The Government have not provided a clear answer to that. They have put the matter into a siding, but they will have to return to it, and answer that question clearly and definitively.
  As the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) said, reports in The Sunday Times at the weekend, and in the Daily Mail today, describe the way in which the Scottish Executive will view long-term care. If those reports are correct, the Government will be put under a spotlight to explain why they have followed one road while the Scottish Executive have gone down another. The Scottish Executive appear set to go further than the Government. The new First Minister, the hon. Member for Central Fife (Mr. McLeish), is reported as saying that not only nursing care, but personal care should be free.
  In The Sunday Times, the First Minister is quoted as saying:
  If you are rooted in public concern then you will know that if every organisation you talk to, every medical group, every local authority, the Sutherland people themselves, the PLP, the Liberal group—
  I believe that he means the Liberal Democrats—
  the opposition are all agreed, then sometimes you just have to say to yourselves: "Well, look. There is a firm body of opinion. Is what we have as a policy the right thing to do?"
  Clearly, the First Minister believed that the Government of Scotland had not adopted the right policy by embracing the Westminster Government's policy of covering nursing care only. I welcome that decision, which is a step in the right direction. I hope that we, along with all the organisations in England and Wales that want the same policy as Scotland, can persuade the Government to provide it.
  There has been no action on the matter during the whole Parliament. Plenty of debate has taken place, and the Government have often refused to set out their clear policy intent. They set up a royal commission within six months of the general election and we had to wait a year for it to report. That is unusually quick for a royal commission, and we welcomed that. Another 18 months passed before the Secretary of State told us at the Dispatch Box that he had to consider the report for another six months. In June or July, smuggled out under cover of the NHS plan, we received the extremely bad news that nothing would be done in this Parliament.
  62
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) spelled out, pensioners feel betrayed not only in the case of long-term care. There is genuine anger about the pension. I have met many of my older constituents, who feel insulted by the 75p increase in the basic state pension this year. Labour has presided over an increase in pensioner poverty—400,000 more pensioners live in poverty today than when the Government took office. The Government spend less of the national income on pensions now than when they took office—they have spent less in the first four years of the Parliament. The Minister may have wriggled at the Dispatch Box, but relying on future figures is not helpful and does not bear close scrutiny. When we consider the true figures for Government spending in their first four years in office, we realise that the prosperity of the nation is not being shared.
  If Labour has made matters worse, the Conservatives are not the solution. Let us consider how much their pensions policy will cost. The hon. Member for Beckenham did an exercise to try to cost our policy. She needed only to read Hansard, which makes it clear that our policy will cost considerably less than the figures that she chose to peddle to the House. The Conservatives would scrap the winter allowance and the free television licence for the over-75s, and they would end the Christmas bonus.
  What extra money would pensioners receive through Conservative pensions policy? My hon. Friend the Member for Northavon was generous; he said that they would receive 42p extra. However, the inflation increase of £2.25 would mean that pensioners would receive only 17p extra.
  Mrs. Lait: Will the hon. Gentleman deny that, last Tuesday, he said that he wanted the basic state pension to be £90 for a single person and £135 for a couple? Will he also deny that the net cost of that could he 2.3p on the basic rate of income tax?
  Mr. Burstow: I have the relevant copy of Hansard, and I urge the hon. Lady to read my speech, her speech and the interventions before she pursues that line of argument. The construction that she placed on my words—although I am happy to accept it—does not entirely reflect what I said. I was referring to the family budget unit's work on low cost, affordable pensions. The unit suggested two figures: £90 for a single person and £135 for couples. I said that we wanted to establish a commission to review the way in which pensions are increased year on year, and that the family budget unit's methodology should be considered as part of the commission's work.
  Mr. Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Burstow: No, I have dealt with the hon. Lady's question clearly for the third or fourth time. She asked me similar questions during last Tuesday's debate.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Northavon rightly said, the Conservatives' proposal is the first case on record of robbing Peter to pay Peter. They would be taking money from pensioners and giving it back to them. We shall hear a great deal about pensions this week because of the pre-Budget statement, and those who consider the debate and the issues should carefully

  63
  examine Conservative proposals and not take them at face value. They should look carefully at the contents of their pockets before accepting any pension proposals from the Conservatives. I think that they will find that they would be well and truly short changed.
  That is hardly surprising when we consider the record of the Conservatives over the 18 years they were in office. It is undoubtedly true that the richest of our pensioners, who are a small minority of pensioners, enjoyed significant increases in their pensions. The poorest pensioners saw their incomes rise by only £10 a week. After 18 years of Tory rule, pensioners had only £10 to show for it. That was the consequence of a Conservative policy which was all about targeting extra help on the rich rather than doing something to help the poorest pensioners.
  We are clear that the most effective way of getting extra help to pensioners is through the basic state pension. It is the most administratively cost-effective way of targeting extra help.
  Mr. Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?
  Mr. Burstow: On the effective targeting of extra help?
  Mr. Bercow: Yes. Given that the Liberal Democrats June 2000 policy document proposed a restoration of the earnings link, that their party conference took a different view and that the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends were veritably at sixes and sevens on the subject, with no coherent overall position, will he now remove the fog of confusion that is descending?
  Mr. Burstow: The hon. Gentleman intervened on a specific point and then moved on to another. He should draw out the document from the Library and read it. It does not state anything to do with the earnings link. An amendment to that effect was moved from the floor of the conference.
  Mr. Bercow: I studied reports of the debates and the votes.
  Mr. Burstow: The hon. Gentleman obviously blanked out during that part of the conference. He should check his facts. Central office briefing was completely wrong.
  The most effective way of getting extra help to pensioners is through the basic pension. Administrative costs are about 6 per cent. of expenditure if there is targeting through a means test. They are about 0.9 per cent. if we proceed through the basic state pension. The Minister has accepted that it is far more costly to use a means test to get extra help to the poorest. As my hon. Friend the Member for Northavon rightly said, the poorest pensioners do not get the help because they are the ones who do not claim the minimum income guarantee.
  As there is such a strong and clear link between poverty and old age, targeting extra help to pensioners aged 75 and 80 is the right way forward. We all know that at the age of 80 pensioners receive an extra 25p. That is not enough to buy a first-class stamp to send it back. When the increase was introduced in 1971, it was worth something.
  64
  Liberal Democrats want to increase the extra payment to £15 for a single pensioner and to £28 for a pensioner couple. The hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) says that our proposals cannot be afforded and cannot be implemented. We say that they can be afforded and delivered. There is clear evidence of a willingness outside the House to ensure that the basic state pension is increased. Even the evidence from the Department of Social Security bears that out. It is clear from social security research report 83 that the Department found from its research work that even people in work were prepared to pay enough to enable an extra £10, £20 or £30 a week to be paid through the basic state pension.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Northavon has been chastised for not sticking to some of the commitments set out in the Liberal Democrat manifesto in 1997. I find it odd to be chastised for doing not less but wanting to be more ambitious and wanting to do more for our pensioners. It is rather novel to be challenged and chastised by the Government for taking such an approach.
  The Prime Minister says that he has got the message about the 75p increase. On Wednesday, the Chancellor of the Exchequer should say clearly and effectively whether he understood the message. We believe, along with people outside the House, that a decent pension increase is long overdue. Too many years have passed during which we have seen the basic state pension wither away. It is time that we reversed that long-term decline and invested for a decent basic pension.
  6.4 pm
  Mr. Paul Flynn: During the 10 years of miserable opposition that I suffered, along with my right hon. and hon. Friends, we dreamed about the day when we would reform the pension system on the lines that we preached throughout those 10 years. Indeed, they have been preached during the party's entire history. We said that we would rebuild the pension on the basis of the national insurance principle. I shall say many things in opposition to the Government's policy, but I shall do so with the support of my party's history, my party's present policy as decided at the most recent conference and the approval of two marvellous reports by no fewer than three Select Committees since June, and knowing that we are talking about a policy that has worked brilliantly.
  We can go to our constituencies and say that there is a Labour good-news story on pensions. We have provided a good £6 billion more than the Conservatives would have made available if they had been re-elected. I do not understand how the perception of our policies is so badly wrong. Many pensioners believe that we have been mean with pensions. The fault is ours. It cannot be said that what has happened was not predicted. It was predicted in early-day motion 1 this year. Over the previous four years, pleas have been made, with the backing now of 106 Members, to restore the earnings link and start to ensure that the basic pension has a strengthened foundation, not a crumbling one.
  To his great credit, the Welsh Liberal, David Lloyd George, introduced the national insurance scheme in 1911. There were moves before that to introduce such a scheme. However, it determined how we would organise our welfare benefit throughout almost the entirety of the 20th century. The 19th century was marked by the

  65
  poor law. It was thought that the way to distribute welfare was to give it to the poor, tapping them on their grey heads and saying, "There is a little handout for you."
  It is extraordinary that we appear to be reverting to the principle of the poor law in Government policy. It has been said that there is a young person's view of these matters, and that may lie behind what is happening. When we were in opposition, and especially during the final years, we said that 1 million of the poorest pensioners would he our first priority. They were getting basic pensions and not what we call the minimum income guarantee.
  There is nothing new about MIG. It was around 60 years ago, and it existed throughout the life of income support, supplementary benefit and national assistance. It has always been possible for those whose pensions were not at a level that was deemed reasonable to obtain extra money. It was the handout, the charity or the gift from Government. The number of our poorest pensioners has been reduced to 876,000, and we are now talking about 500,000. They are living below a level that the Government have described as the minimum income guarantee.
  The Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait), talked about the take-up of the scheme, which arrived two years late—the Government had been begged to introduce it a long time before. Take-up is disappointing. At the most, it is about 5 per cent., but it is probably about 3 per cent., which is tiny. Why is that the position? I suggest to my right hon. Friend the Minister that he should talk to pensioners. Many pensioners worked throughout their working life, paid all their dues and never claimed any dole or any benefit. That is a matter of great pride for them. When they reach the age of retirement, they are told that if they are to get the amount of money that the Government regard as the minimum that they should receive, they will have to complete a very long and complex form and ask for a handout. That is the difference between what the Government Front-Bench spokesmen are saying and what 85 Labour Members have said and have not resiled from in early-day motion 1. They want the extra amount put on the basic pension, so that it is an entitlement that pensioners can accept with dignity and pride. They do not want it to be a demeaning amount that pensioners have to claim through the income support scheme. The difference is crucial. It is difficult to see why that is not understood by the Government. Investigations have been made throughout this long period into why people entitled to the minimum income guarantee are not receiving it. The evidence shows that pensioners find the scheme demeaning, although it has not been published in great detail.
  The majority of pensioners, including those who will come to Parliament tomorrow, want a promise that no party is making to them, which is that in their retirement they will have an increase in their pensions equivalent to the real rate of inflation. That is not a great deal to ask. Is it affordable? I agree with the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) about compulsory pension schemes.
  It is not just today's pensioners who face these problems. People in their 40s and 50s who were mis-sold personal pensions will get a terrible shock when they reach retirement age and go into the world of annuities. Annuity rates dropped in value by 30 per cent. from the 1990–94
  66
  projections. That is a huge drop. Some of my constituents believed that their total fund was the annual amount that they would receive in their personal pensions, and they had organised their lives accordingly. People understand well their occupational pensions, but few understand the personal pensions that they were wickedly mis-sold.
  Millions of young people will be in even greater trouble if we allow the basic pension to wither on the vine. Those not in work will be in terrible trouble, but so will those not paying into any occupational scheme. The hon. Member for Bournemouth, West spoke against the policy of his own party. The most dangerous thing about the Government's policy is that it attacks the principle of the basic pension. If on some dark day in the future there were a change of Government, they would have an open invitation to destroy the basic pension. The Opposition already have a policy of allowing young people to pull out of it.
  We all know the attitude of staff to pensions. They have almost to be nailed to the desk to get them to contribute to pension schemes that are freely given, which require a contribution of 10 per cent. of their salaries. It is difficult to persuade them that they are not immortal and that one day they will grow old and need that pension. They do not want to contribute during the early, furniture-buying, child-rearing days of marriage. In their 40s and 50s, they will have to pay 15 or 20 per cent. of their income on a pension. If the state pension goes, they will receive a derisory pension. That is an important point.
  I want to consider the intellectual poverty of the Government's position on pensions. Since June, there have been reports from three Select Committees, which are not manned or womanned by people who present a challenging view for the Government. I have just discussed that with my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn). We have been told in clear terms that we will never be allowed to serve on a Select Committee, certainly not the Select Committee on Social Security. The Government trust members of Select Committees to be loyal to them. I would love to read the Government's response to the splendid report of the Social Security Committee on "The Contributory Principle", which says that the Government's preference for means-testing
  involves a rejection of the wider functions which the contributory system offers, of allowing individuals, whatever their means, to redistribute income over their lifetime.
  The whole point of national insurance is to provide help in certain periods of our lives: when we are very young, in the early days of marriage and when we are old. If we have paid into an insurance fund during that period when we can afford to do so, we can have money out at other times. Every party accepts that principle for child benefit, which enjoys almost 100 per cent. take-up. Why? Because there is no stigma attached to it, everyone can receive it and it is entirely untargeted. It is a very popular benefit.
  The report from the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs on "Poverty in Scotland" said:
  fundamentally we believe that the basis for support in old age should be the universal state pension, payable at the age of retirement. The state pension should be linked to the increase in average earnings.
  The Social Security Committee report on "Pensioner Poverty" referred to the aims set out in the 1998 pensions Green Paper. It said that
  people who work all their lives should not have to rely on means-tested benefits when they retire.

  67
  It went on to say that
  the Government's long-term aim of enabling working people to retire on incomes which will not require them to depend on a means-test, will be realised.
  All those reports are detailed and thorough. They were the result of months of work by the various Committee. Not one of them supports the stubborn, doctrinaire line taken by the Government, which is contrary to the opinion of the Labour party and is difficult to sell to pensioners.
  We know that the Government intend to allocate a large amount of money to pensioners. However, after the Budget, the £150 allowance and the policy behind it met a growing feeling of rejection. I went to a meeting of a pensioners' group, and the morning papers were saying that the Chancellor would be popular with pensioners. He was not. Feelings about that larger lump sum were similar to those that people had in the early years of trade unions when rogue employers cheated their workers every week by paying them low wages and then tried to buy back their favour by giving them a turkey for Christmas. The effect of being given a turkey was much greater than being cheated out of £5 a week in their wages. It was a gimmick. When the 75p increase was announced, those pensioners were very angry about it.
  Liberal Democrat and Labour Members have expended much energy trying to find out the amount of the national insurance fund. That information is crucial to debates on pensions. Last November, there was a surplus of £8.43 billion. That money belongs principally to pensioners. This and previous Governments have raided the national insurance fund to reduce contributions to employees. Employees have a claim on some of that money, but large sums have been used for that purpose.
  The stable employment situation, with the lowest unemployment rate for 20 years, and the Government's other great achievements have ensured that the national insurance fund contains an even bigger sum. That £8.43 billion was not the balance of the fund: it was the unneeded surplus. There was already enough money in the fund for contingencies, as the law states that there should be. Increases in unemployment could have been dealt with using the contingency fund, and there would still have been £8.4 billion available. An increase in the basic pension of £1 a week would cost about £500 million. No one is asking for an unreasonable increase for pensioners to bring pensions up to what they would have been had those pensioners not been cheated by the Tory Government every year between 1980 and 1997. We know that that is not possible: it would be very difficult to achieve.
  We argue, however, that increases are affordable. They are just, and they are the best way to reward pensioners for the contributions that they have made. The Treasury supplement was paid for years. Real money went into the scheme. Pensioners who have worked all their lives and have contributed through their insurance contributions and through the Treasury supplement now have to beg for charity and take handouts to get a pension. Increasing the MIG to £90 may provide extra money, but instead of the current one in five persons on means-tested benefits there will be more of them—if the present trend continues that number will increase to one in four by 2050. We cannot say to a whole generation that they must rely on means-tested benefits.
  68
  I appeal to the Government to re-examine their policies. Those policies are deeply unfair, although the Government's heart is in the right place. Their spending is generous, but they are corrupting what has been one of the Labour party's great achievements over the past 100 years: supporting the principle of national insurance. Not only is a large increase fair, affordable and overdue; it should be possible to make that increase now, and it should be announced on Wednesday. There is no excuse for any other action.
  6.20 pm
  Mr. Patrick Nicholls: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn), who speaks about these matters with great passion and knowledge. I thought I would be able to agree with him to an extent that would embarrass us both, but I am happy to say that in a moment I shall be able to resume normal hostilities.
  The hon. Gentleman was right to talk about the restoration of the pensions link, a theme that has run through the debate. Certainly, out in the country there is a feeling that—if I may use the phrase employed by the hon. Gentleman a few moments ago—the Conservative Government cheated in 1980 by withdrawing the link with earnings, and that although the present Government would like to restore it now, they cannot for some reason. The Government seem to be trying to have it both ways: they are blaming us for taking away the earnings link, and are trying to achieve vicarious credit by saying that they would of course restore it, but cannot quite get around to doing so.
  The history is instructive. Under the National Insurance Act 1974, Labour linked the retirement pension to the rise in earnings. I think that it was honouring an election pledge, and many people greeted the move with joy. The difficulty is that it is one thing to introduce legislation, and another to implement it. In 1976, pensions were raised by less than income or earnings. In that year, the Labour Government did not implement their own legislation. Then came the uprating for November 1977, when the link did not apply, because earnings had risen faster than prices, and earnings had risen faster in any event.
  The real crunch for the Labour party came in the uprating statement of November 1978. Labour raised pensions by 11.4 per cent., but earnings had risen by 13.3 per cent. Labour then proposed an uprating that it was not in a position to implement, because it lost the election. That is nevertheless relevant to the point that I am about to make.
  In March 1979, it was proposed that pensions should rise by 12.8 per cent. At the time, earnings were rising by something in excess of 15 per cent. That caused outrage among pensioners, many of whom had doubtless voted Labour and seen legislation passed, and now saw their own fluffy Labour Government and their own Secretary of State avoiding their own legislation.
  Trying to square the circle and work out how such an extraordinary thing had happened—extraordinary, that is, to those who had not followed the track record of previous Labour Governments—Lord Ennals, then Secretary of State for Social Services, wrote in Pensioners Voice something that, even in a cynical profession, comes across as cringe-making. He wrote:
  There is a statutory obligation to take these figures (i.e., earnings) into account, which was done, but no statutory obligation to get it right—

  69
  a Government who introduce legislation then cynically refuse to implement it.
  The Conservative Government did not, in some cloak-and-dagger or hole-in-the-corner way, repeal the link; they said in their 1979 election campaign that they would remove the link, because at the time it was unsustainable. Lord Jenkin of Roding, as he then was not—he was then Secretary of State for Social Services—explained why it was unsustainable, given the state of the economy at the time. I shall say more about that shortly. He went on to say that the rise in pensions would be linked to the rise in prices instead, because that was
  a more realistic, a more honest and, above all, a more sustainable, prospectus.—[Official Report, 20 December 1979; Vol. 976, c. 903.]
  What has happened with the earnings link has passed into mythology. A Labour Government campaigned to introduce it, refused to implement their own legislation, and cynically sneered that all they were obliged to do was take the figures into account—they did not have to get it right. A Conservative Opposition and, in due course, a Conservative Government campaigned on the basis that those figures were simply unsustainable, and that it was better in the long run to promise something to pensioners that was sustainable.
  Mr. Rooker: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Nicholls: I would adore to give way to the Minister, so that I can share his embarrassment.
  Mr. Rooker: There is no embarrassment. The hon. Gentleman has gone over the history of what happened during those four years and I do not dissent from any of what he has said, but he has neglected to draw attention to something that was fundamentally wrong. I refer to the attempts to forecast earnings and prices six months in advance. Ministers were coming to the Dispatch Box in March announcing what they thought earnings and prices would be in November, and stating what the pension would be. The forecasts were wrong, and it was necessary to return to an historical system.
  There were inbuilt errors in the design of the system. I complained at the time, as did others. There was no precision in the attempts to forecast what would happen in six months' time, which is why we have an historical system today.
  Mr. Nicholls: There is something glorious about the Minister. I always enjoy my exchanges with him.
  As the Minister well knows, under the Labour Government in those days it was impossible to forecast rises in prices or earnings in terms of more than a few weeks, because the economy was completely out of control. At that time—the last time that the Minister was involved in an alliance, a Lib-Lab pact—it was impossible to forecast what would happen from week to week. At that time, the country was so bankrupt that when Lord Healey was going overseas he had to turn his car around on the way to Heathrow, because the International Monetary Fund had said that it would withdraw the country's credit and make it bankrupt.
  In 1979 our economy was a thoroughgoing basket case, and it was certainly true at the time that the earnings link was unsustainable. We are now in a vastly different world. We now have an excellent economy, bequeathed by a
  70
  Conservative Government who had learned from the mistakes of their predecessors. Although the economy will slow down as stealth taxes begin to bite, the present Government have not yet wrecked the economy that they were bequeathed. As it is a strong economy, I think it fair to consider whether the earnings link could be restored in some shape or form.
  I say that without for a moment making light of the figures that would be involved. I understand that if the earnings link were restored for this year, it would cost £1 billion, and that by 2010 it would amount to £8 billion. Those are substantial sums, even if we allow for the amount that the Government have stored up to give back to those from whom they took it forcibly in the first place to persuade them to vote Labour next May, and even judged by the sums that are in reserve.
  But—it is an important but—this is a vastly different world from that of 1979. Although all three parties have, in a sense, followed the historic and traditional view that the earnings link is unsustainable, I think it fair to ask whether there is something in it that we should try to revive or retrieve.
  I think it comes down to this. I think that Members on both sides of the House always see such action as a sticking plaster. One thing that unites the hon. Member for Newport, West and me is our wish to see something done for pensioners that is better than what has been done for them by either of the last two Administrations. That much is clear; but we must also ask what is the underlying, and overriding, consideration.
  When we talk of the earnings link, we are not just trying to outbid each other. We are saying that we want the elderly, who have played their part in producing the economy we have today, to be able to benefit in the future. That is the core of what we are trying to achieve, and I should have thought it was possible. I do not know whether it will be necessary to define it in relation to gross domestic product, but it should be possible to state the aspiration in regard to an earnings link, while ensuring the existence of mechanisms to deal with any substantial downturn in the economy without the need to refuse to implement legislation that we have ourselves passed.
  I think that a debate on that should take place in my party, and I think it would be healthy for it to take place in all three principal parties. I should like it to be acknowledged that, although such action was indeed unsustainable in the world of 1979, we should now ask—given the present state of the economy—how pensioners can have a stake in rising prosperity, while not ultimately saddling taxpayers with burdens that they cannot afford.
  The hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Foster) made an offer, but I do not know whether he is prepared to come down to my constituency on his holiday and keep his promise. He offered to give a cheque to anyone who, in a public meeting, could honestly say that, as a pensioner, he or she was worse off under the present Government. I hope that the hon. Gentleman has his cheque book ready, as the first person to whom he must send a cheque is Mr. Allen Bridges of Shaldon in Devon. Mr. Bridges wrote to the Prime Minister about the interesting matter of the financial burdens of partially sighted people and concluded his letter by saying:
  But no matter, I have my 75p increase plus my 75p "over 80" gift and to cap it all, £100 fuel allowance. Minus £97 tax credit loss, this then equals £3 for fuel plus increase plus age allowance. It makes the mafia appear as Fairy Godmothers.

  71
  I am sure that a cheque should be made out to Mr. Bridges, which is spelt with one "d".
  I have dozens of such letters, which are completely unsolicited. If time allowed I would read them all, but I shall read out just one from Mr. Howell, again from Shaldon, who, I am sure, would also appreciate a cheque from the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye. Mr. Howell writes:
  Dear Mr. Nicholls,
  My wife is 77 years of age and is registered disabled; I submit her tax return to the Inland Revenue each year.
  I am enclosing photostat copies of statements for the tax years ending April 1999 and April 2000 which reveal a substantial drop in income due to the changes made by the Chancellor … respect of the taxation of dividends.
  Throughout her working life my wife endeavoured to save, out of taxed income, in order that she would not become a burden on the State. The Government boast that they have kept their promise not to increase basic rates of tax but are careful not to mention the many significant increases in indirect taxes.
  There are, most probably, large numbers of pensioners who have been affected similarly and I hope that protest continues to be voiced in … Parliament and the media.
  Mr. Howell then sets out figures that have been accepted by the Inland Revenue, so there is no doubt about them. Mr. Howell says that for the year 1996–97 his gross income was £5,220 and his tax refund was £601—I shall leave out the pence for the sake of brevity. In 1997–98, his gross income was £6,853 and his tax refund was £619. In 1998–99, his gross income was £5,345 and his tax refund was £588. In 1999–2000, his gross income was £5,062 and his tax refund was £10.66. Mr. Howell concludes in irony, I assume, rather than sorrow:
  I had thought that the Government were encouraging people to save for their later years!!
  We must be straight about the matter.
  Mr. Rooker: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Nicholls: I shall give way to the Minister who is marvellous and reminds me of the late Brian London. Boxing fans will know that that was not meant to be a compliment.
  Mr. Rooker: I would like more information, as the hon. Gentleman has just quoted the figures for a tax refund for a gross income of £5,000. The basic pension for a couple is £107 a week and the minimum income guarantee is £121 so, because of the tax allowances, other income must be involved. In that situation, there would not be a tax liability. The hon. Gentleman should not kid the House that the couple's gross income is their only income. He cannot be giving the House the full information.
  Mr. Nicholls: I am giving the House the full information, and it says something about the right hon. Gentleman, whom I respect, that he is embarrassed by what he has heard. I will send the right hon. Gentleman the information, which is news to no one on this side of the House. I accept that the matter is not entirely within his brief, as it is more of a Treasury brief. However, if he understood the effect of advance corporation tax on
  72
  pensioner income, he would not be in the least surprised by the outcome. I shall send him the papers without any difficulty at all.
  Mr. Bercow: As my hon. Friend is helpfully providing the House with a list, perhaps he would be so kind and generous as to add to it one of my own constituents, Mrs. Jones-Williams of Seven Gables, Buckingham Road, Winslow, whose husband is registered blind and who is trying to maintain a car. Mrs. Jones-Williams has suffered from the Government's ACT policy and assures me that she has been impoverished by this benighted Administration and wants them out of office yesterday.
  Mr. Nicholls: There are dozens of examples of the way in which ACT has worked. The two examples that I mentioned simply made the point that the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye was wrong.
  A moment or two ago, I said that, to some extent, given the figures we were discussing, we were almost swapping offers. We need to go much further than that, and a different approach should be considered by all the main political parties.
  There is now a third age, and people live immeasurably longer than ever before. In 1909, which, give or take, was the time when Lloyd George introduced the first state retirement pension, average life expectancy was 45 years for men and 49 years for women. In other words, the state pension was paid 15 years after the actuarial calculation of one's death. Give or take a few years for the time that I was born, the figures for 1951 show that men's life expectancy was 66 years and women's life expectancy was 71 years. For a male born today, life expectancy is 75 years and, for a woman, 80 years. I have checked with the Library the proposition that once one takes out of those figures the fact that mortality in the early years is still relatively high, it is true that someone born today has every expectation of living well into his or her nineties. When the state retirement pension was introduced, it came into effect 15 years after one was expected to die. With a bit of luck, one will now live for a good 25 years after first receiving one's pension.
  Mr. Butterfill: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Nicholls: If my hon. Friend will allow me, I shall continue as time is short.
  We must draw the conclusion that we have the opportunity of a third age. We need a bigger idea, and Her Majesty's Government—it does not matter of which political party—should accept that we have moved on so much that we need a Ministry of the third age. We need an overriding, all-embracing Ministry that considers pensions policy, employment policy and health policy. It should also think about recreation policy, taxation and health care. Old age need not be undignified.
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland wants pensioners to be branded because he thinks that being old is uncool. The hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley), who is chairman of the parliamentary Labour party, said that there is no point in trying to appeal to pensioners, as they are either racist or Conservative. The first notion is a slur and the second is not necessarily always true. However, we all aspire to a dignified old age and to have time during the third age

  73
  for opportunities that people of our parents' and grandparents' generation would scarcely have believed. If there was a Secretary of State in the Cabinet who was charged with considering the entirety of what it is like in the third age, we really could make progress. Until then, progress must be relatively slight.
  6.37 pm
  Mr. Bill Rammell: In the three minutes available to me, I shall attempt to do justice to the proposition on the Order Paper. I shall make three short points, the first of which concerns the consistency of Liberal Democrat Members. If we go back to their 1997 manifesto, they were in favour of raising pensions only in line with prices. In the vote in the House in April, they committed themselves to restoring the link between pensions and earnings. Liberal Democrats campaigned on that issue in the local elections and, in my constituency of Harlow, put leaflets through the doors that made it clear that their policy was to restore the link between pensions and earnings. In the vote at the Liberal Democrat conference in September, the link between pensions and earnings was explicitly rejected.
  That is a bewildering set of somersaults on policy, the end result of which, certainly in my constituency, is that Liberal Democrats refuse to admit that originally they were in favour of restoring the link between pensions and earnings. People expect from politicians a degree of consistency on the issue which, sadly, the Liberal Democrats lack.
  I shall pick up on two other points made by Liberal Democrat Members this afternoon, the first of which concerns long-term care. I shall reiterate the fact that the Liberal Democrats' alternative set of proposals for the 2000 Budget did not include a costed commitment to paying for personal long-term care. Their explicit costed commitment was to pay for nursing care, not personal care. Frankly, that is symptomatic of what we often get from Liberal Democrat Members. They spray promises around like confetti and hope that, in the meantime, nobody will look at the detail or the fine print and find out that there is no costed commitment to implement their proposals. I am committed to progressive taxation to fund decent public services, but the case for that is not bolstered by not being straight with people about where the money will come from.
  Finally, in the short time available, I shall refer to the specific pension proposals that the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) spoke about this afternoon. If I heard him correctly, he said that he would fund those proposals by raising the top rate of taxation to 50p in the pound. Only six months ago, the Liberal Democrats' alternative Budget for 2000 proposed raising the top rate of taxation to pay for cutting the 10p starting rate to zero. Therefore, in six months, the specific proposal from the Liberal Democrats has been changed for a different purpose. There is no consistency whatever from them on those issues. That is why, in my constituency and elsewhere, no one will believe them.
  6.40 pm
  Mr. Matthew Taylor: The hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell) talks about consistency and about Liberal Democrat policy changing. I suspect that, on Wednesday, we shall see one of the
  74
  Government's biggest U-turns. They have spent some three years arguing against the principle of above-inflation pension increases. I believe that, because of a campaign by the Liberal Democrats—with the support of many Labour Back Benchers—but, above all, by pensioners, despite having no support from Ministers or from the Conservative party, which did not accept the argument, the case for above-inflation increases, resulting in a substantial pension increase, will prove to have been won.
  That is a measure of the mistake that the Chancellor made at the start of the Parliament in taking pensioners for granted and in forcing them into increased means-testing. It is a measure of the effectiveness of a public revolt that has had nothing like the attention of the fuel tax protests, but will prove to have been more effective.
  In constituency after constituency throughout the country, pensioners have taken up the case for a decent income, on which they can survive, as of right. That was the basis of the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb), probably the most expert person in the House on the issue; he is certainly one of the most expert.
  In those terms, I regret the tone of the Minister's response. Many years ago, I served with him on the Committee that dealt with the poll tax. He did an effective job; I think that we did quite an effective opposition job between us. The poll tax certainly did not last long. I have always had great admiration for him, but he misjudged his response and he was wrong in his criticisms.
  The figures that the Minister gave were, to say the least, misleading. He did not let me intervene at the time. Had he done so, I could have put him right, so it is sad that he did not. The fact is that the Government will call a general election—we will see whether they get back—and leave office spending less on pensions as a proportion of national wealth than when they came in. They will be doing worse on the state pension than the Conservatives.
  The figures that the Minister sought to give related to overall expenditure on pensioners. That is a different issue, but, even there, the Government's record is nothing to be proud of because the simple fact is that, at this moment, they are still spending less than the Conservatives.
  We know that the Government have jacked up spending for the general election and that they will just, in the Minister's terms—not by much—reach the level that the Conservatives were at when they left office. In the meantime, however, pensioners will have lost out on money that they will never get back.
  The Conservative official spokesperson, the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait), made up a series of figures. The hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) resorted to saying that he preferred those to ours. She simply got her figures wrong. Perhaps she should call the House of Commons Library. It is very good and it will sort her out on that. She failed to take account of the fact that the costs of our policy are net, not gross. She also underestimated the gross costs of the policy, but her maths are clearly not too good. Broadly speaking, the net costs are equivalent to the income that we raise from the 50 per cent. rate of tax on earnings over £100,000 a year. Some years will bring in more income than we need and others fractionally less, but the figures are almost identical. There is a tie-up there.

  75
  We are clear about why it is necessary to put that tax on: we want to guarantee pensioners our big increases. We could simply hope that the economy delivers continued growth. The evidence is that the Chancellor has more than a big enough pot into which he can dip to make substantial pension increases. I hope that he will take a step towards that on Wednesday, but to guarantee, after a general election, to deliver substantial pension increases, we have to say that that might mean an increase in tax. We believe that it would be right to have a 50 per cent. tax rate on earnings over £100,000 a year, if necessary.
  There are several reasons for that. First, we believe that it is important that pensioners should receive the benefit of the pension increases. Secondly, our tax system is regressive. People on high incomes pay less tax overall as a proportion of their income than those on low incomes. We do not believe that that is right. In tackling what was a real problem—taxation of very high incomes under Labour prior to 1979—previous Conservative Chancellors went too far. That is why very wealthy people now pay less, as a proportion of income, than people on very low incomes—the pensioners on whom we are concentrating. We believe that, if we have to make a tax increase, that is where it should be made. It will still leave this country's high-rate tax one of the lowest in Europe and lower than for most of the period that Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister.
  Mr. Bercow: Obviously, if the top tax rate is cut, those who pay that rate thenceforward will pay a lower proportion of their income to the Exchequer, but does the hon. Gentleman not accept that, as a consequence of the Lawson tax changes, the proportion of the overall tax-take contributed by the highest earners was higher? I hope that even a Liberal Democrat would acknowledge that point.
  Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman is trying to argue that, if we tax very high earners a little more, we will get less income. I challenge him to find an academic report that backs him. Even the last Conservative Administration—let alone any academic group—undertook their own report on that and failed to find the evidence.
  The hon. Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara) made a far more measured speech than the Minister. Not only Liberal Democrat Members, but other Members on both sides of the House would agree with much of what he said. He sought to reflect some of the general concerns, which were echoed by the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn), who has an exceptional record on this issue. He highlighted something that the Minister sought to deny: the Government are holding back key information on their ability to afford increases prior to their announcement.
  The Minister says that we will be given the information after the announcement. That will help us to look at what the Government have done, but it does not help anyone to argue, before the announcement, for a better, more generous decision. Once that announcement has been made, there is no chance of any of us—whether the hon. Member for Newport, West or Liberal Democrat Members—winning the argument this year that the Government have the funds to do more. The decision will already have been made.
  76
  My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) addressed the issue of long-term care. It was not the centre of attention in the debate, but it is an important matter. I have already touched on the accusation of inconsistency by the hon. Member for Harlow. It will be interesting to see whether he says the same of his Chancellor. In both cases, I hope that he will do more than he has previously argued for.
  Let us be clear about long-term care. We made an absolute guarantee to fund nursing care, which the Government would not guarantee. We committed ourselves to work towards funding long-term care, too. That is a difference between Labour and us: it is not that the proposal is not budgeted; it is that Ministers oppose it and we shall work for it. People who are concerned about their elderly relatives selling their houses and having to pay for care should understand where the Liberal Democrats stand and where the Labour party stands.
  Mr. Lembit Öpik: Does my hon. Friend agree that there should also be a rurality consideration? Provision for the elderly sometimes costs more in rural areas, such as mid-Wales, and the Government should take that into consideration in their planning.
  Mr. Taylor: My hon. Friend tempts me, as the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell, down the route of special offers for rural constituents. There are key issues for rural constituencies, and I hope that Ministers will address them soon in the long-promised but still-not-delivered review of local government expenditure. I have made that argument directly to Ministers.
  Today's debate has very clearly set out three options available to pensioners. Conservative Members are so embarrassed by their true position on pensions that they dare not spell it out. The truth, of course, is that they are committed to the continued whittling away of the state pension as the basis for people's long-term support. The hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls), to be fair to him, countered by calling for restoration of the earnings link, which he believes would cost £8 billion. I notice that that is the very same sum that Conservative Members have committed themselves not to adding, but to cutting.
  The hon. Member for Bournemouth, West spoke rather more in favour of the position advocated by Conservative Front Benchers—although they will not spell out their position. The truth is that, on the pensions issue, Conservative Members want to have their cake and to eat it. They want to talk about tax cuts, but not about the fact that those can be delivered only by cutting expenditure on pensions and forcing more people into private pension schemes. Nevertheless, they pretend to pensioners that they want a real increase in the state pension.
  One Conservative leaflet after another promises that pensioners would receive a pension increase of more than £5. One has to read the fine-print—as many pensioners do—to discover that the Conservatives would take away pensioners' Christmas bonus, heating allowance and even the 25p age addition that people start receiving at 80. The promise is an insult.
  Mr. Butterfill: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Taylor: I cannot give way to the hon. Gentleman; I have to get on. People will be able to read his comments for themselves.

  77
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Northavon said, Labour Members are all over the place on the pensions issue. Year after year in this Parliament, Liberal Democrat Members have campaigned for real increases in the state pension. Ministers, however, have said that they cannot agree to those increases, but must target assistance more accurately on those who need it, yet the Government have chosen to provide the heating allowance, which is not only indiscriminate, but not taxed. Pensioners who perhaps could have afforded to do without the allowance are beneficiaries of it. Therefore, Ministers' comments on targeting are absolute nonsense.
  The Government do not want to increase the basic state pension, but are willing to allow it to wither away in the long run. Their long-term plan is to ensure ever more means-tested support and to withdraw support from those who they think can afford to be without it. Although that is a distinct policy, which is not dissimilar from that of the Conservatives, they do not want to talk about it.
  The Government also believe that the arrival, just before Christmas, of a £150 cheque for the heating allowance is more effective politically than adding a few pounds a week to the basic state pension. The 75p increase, however, proved that they misunderstood the situation and got the spin wrong. It led to a revolt, and proved that pensioners care most about being able to feed themselves and to live in dignity week by week.
  Tomorrow, there will be a pensioners' rally at Westminster, attended by pensioners who have supported all of the political parties. They are rising in protest at the way in which the Government have treated them in this Parliament. The Chancellor's attempt on Wednesday to retrieve the situation will be seen for what it is: a response to that campaign as the general election approaches, rather than a genuine commitment to long-term improvement in the basic state pension.
  The Liberal Democrat proposals would ensure substantial increases in the state pension, targeted on those who most need it. If we were making Wednesday's announcement, single pensioners would receive an additional £7.25. Older pensioners and pensioner couples would receive even more, so that pensioner couples over 80 would receive an increase of more than £30 a week. However, we go even further than that.
  Labour Members have asked about our long-term policy. Because we have underwritten our pensions policy with a tax policy to fund it, we can guarantee that we will be able to deliver those increases in addition to those made in the Chancellor's announcement on Wednesday. The difference is that our policies are underwritten and funded by a tax policy that is more progressive than that which the Government are willing to offer. We can fund a pension increase that will take pensioners out of means-testing, rather than forcing them into it, as the Chancellor will do on Wednesday.
  Our policies give pensioners independence and dignity, rather than force them to ask for hand-outs from the state. They also guarantee that pensioners receive the increase, regardless of whether they can find their way through the means-testing jungle that the Government have imposed.
  6.56 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Angela Eagle): The hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor) was complaining that
  78
  Conservative and Labour Members had been caught electioneering—as if that were a crime—but then went on to do a little electioneering of his own. Much to my surprise, however, he produced figures different from those given earlier by the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb).
  Undoubtedly, both hon. Members' expenditure will be financed by the same 10p increase in the top tax rate that they announced, and which my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Foster) pointed out has already been committed elsewhere. Liberal Democrat Members really have to learn that they cannot keep spending the same tax increase over and over again. One may not be able to perceive that fact when in opposition, but one perceives it rather quickly when one gets into government.
  We have had an interesting debate. All the major parties—I include the Liberal Democrats—fought the previous general election on the same basis: that there would be a link between pensions and prices, and that other action would be taken subsequently. I should quote the Liberal Democrats' 1997 manifesto, on which the hon. Member for Northavon was elected to the House. It stated:
  The basic state pension will remain indexed to prices.
  It went on to say a little more about what they might have managed to do had they entered government in 1997. It stated:
  We will create an additional top-up pension for pensioners with incomes below the income support level. This will be indexed to earnings and tapered as outside income increases.
  Does not such provision indexed to earnings describe the minimum income guarantee that the Government have introduced? I am not very sophisticated, but is not tapering that provision as outside income rises another way of describing a means test? I might have it wrong, but I think that that is how the Liberal Democrats' manifesto—on which every Liberal Democrat Member stood—would have been interpreted by those who read the manifestos in the previous general election.
  Mr. Webb: The hon. Lady is obviously easily confused. The inflation figure for next April is £2.25 and I pledged £5 on top of inflation, making the £7.25 mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor). The taper mentioned in the manifesto would mean a rate of less than the 100 per cent. tax that she applies to pensioners' savings. That would be better than what she has delivered.
  Angela Eagle: I notice that the hon. Gentleman did not address the point about the manifesto, which is on the record. All the Liberal Democrats promised to do is what we have done in government.
  The Conservatives recently produced their pensions policy and, clearly, they also agree only with an increase in terms of prices. However, they would abolish winter fuel payments. They would abolish the Christmas bonus and the free television licences for the over-75s—even though those are arriving as we speak. They would abolish the age addition for the over-80s and, interestingly, the winter fuel payments to men over 60.
  In her speech—which I enjoyed—the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) asked me why 1 million men aged between 60 and 65 were still waiting for their winter

  79
  fuel payments. What a cheek to ask me that, when the Conservatives have announced that they would abolish the payment.
  Mrs. Lait: Does the Minister agree that the philosophical point is that people want to have their money in their own pockets to spend as they wish, rather than the gimmicks that the Government deliver? They want the dignity and self-respect of spending their own money.
  Angela Eagle: The practical point is that, according to the Saga poll, 75 per cent. of pensioners do not want their winter fuel payments abolished.
  The Tories' "Common Sense for Pensioners" policy would effectively give 42p extra to some people in certain circumstances. That is enough to buy a tin of Campbell's soup—very generous. The Tory document contains some questions and answers. For example:
  What about a man aged 60 to 64 losing his winter fuel payment?
  The answer is:
  We faced a tough choice here … We decided it was more important to increase the state pension. The savings on benefits for this group help to finance better pensions which will, of course, benefit these men within a few years.
  The reality is that men aged between 60 and 65 will not get winter fuel payments when they retire under the Tories.
  Spending as a percentage of gross domestic product has increased and will be greater by April 2001 than when we came to power, as my right hon. Friend the Minister of State made clear. We must remember also that that is a higher percentage of a growing GDP because we have had a successful economy under the Labour Government. The cake is getting bigger and the percentage given to pensioners is also getting bigger. That is before whatever might happen on Wednesday, so part of the Liberal Democrat motion is inaccurate.
  I have had some fun listening to the debate today. The hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls), who is a doughty fighter—a shock trooper for Thatcherism in his time—gave us a history of the link. He said that it would be a good time to consider restoring the earnings link and that, because the Tories' economic legacy was so good, we could now afford it. What a cheek from the party that abolished the link in the first place. That was opportunism from the hon. Gentleman.
  The hon. Gentleman did not mention the £8 billion cost of restoring the earnings link and said nothing about how his sums would add up—particularly when the shadow Chancellor has already announced £8 billion in tax cuts. We know that the Tories plan £16 billion worth of cuts from our spending plans, yet the hon. Gentleman proposes to spend another £8 billion. I am not sure how much will end up in the national insurance fund when the Tories are through with it. However, there seems to be a lot of billions floating around for people to spend as they think fit.
  This debate has come far too early this week for it to be meaningful. The Government have spent £6.5 billion more on pensioners over this Parliament than would have been spent under Tory spending plans. The key point is that half of that has gone to the poorer pensioners who were in poverty as a result of the Tory legacy. In those 18 years, pensioners' income distribution was stretched. Many pensioners did far better in that period because of
  80
  occupational pensions and the original SERPS. There was a 64 per cent. increase in real terms in pensioners' incomes but, when we look at the details, we see that the income distribution stretched and that there was a huge increase in pensioner inequality. Given the structure of pensioner incomes that we inherited as a result of the Tories' ideology, we had to address pensioner poverty and the bottom end of income distribution first. This is what we have done with the minimum income guarantee.
  There are those who may quibble with the minimum income guarantee, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn). But I say to them, "Please help pensioners who are eligible for the guarantee to claim it. You can have your own opinion of it but, on average, those who claim successfully are £20 a week better off. Your constituents who are eligible but not claiming will thank you for helping them to make a claim, rather than for rubbishing the system."
  Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Minister give way?
  Angela Eagle: No, I do not have long enough. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is helping his pensioners to claim the guarantee.
  The key thing this week is the Chancellor's statement on Wednesday. To those who have been making pleas and looking at the structure of expenditure and the Government's record, all I will say is, "Wait for Wednesday to see how we will fulfil our promises to Britain's pensioners."
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 38, Noes 280.

  Division No. 317]

  [7.7 pm

  AYES

  Allan, Richard

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

  Ballard, Jackie

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Livsey, Richard

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

  Breed, Colin

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Burstow, Paul

  Moore, Michael

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

  Oaten, Mark

  Chidgey, David

  Öpik, Lembit

  Cotter, Brian

  Rendel, David

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Sanders, Adrian

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Stunell, Andrew

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Hancock, Mike

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Harvey, Nick

  Tyler, Paul

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Webb, Steve

  Willis, Phil

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Mr. Tom Brake and

  Keetch, Paul

  Sir Robert Smith.

  NOES

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Ashton, Joe

  Ainger, Nick

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NF)

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Alexander, Douglas

  Austin, John

  Allen, Graham

  Banks, Tony

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Barnes, Harry

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Barron, Kevin

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Battle, John

  81

  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

  Benton, Joe

  Flynn, Paul

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Follett, Barbara

  Berry, Roger

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Best, Harold

  Foulkes, George

  Betts, Clive

  Fyfe, Maria

  Blackman, Liz

  Gapes, Mike

  Blizzard, Bob

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Gerrard, Neil

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Goggins, Paul

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Browne, Desmond

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Burden, Richard

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Burgon, Colin

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Grocott, Bruce

  Butterfill, John

  Grogan, John

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Hain, Peter

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Hanson, David

  Casale, Roger

  Healey, John

  Caton, Martin

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Cawsey, Ian

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Chaytor, David

  Heppell, John

  Clapham, Michael

  Hill, Keith

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Hope, Phil

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Howarth, George(Knowsley N)

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Clwyd, Ann

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Coleman, Iain

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Connarty, Michael

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hurst, Alan

  Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

  Hutton, John

  Cooper, Yvette

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Corbett, Robin

  Illsley, Eric

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Corston, Jean

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Cousins, Jim

  Jenkins, Brian

  Cranston, Ross

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

  Cummings, John

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Dalyell, Tam

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Davidson, Ian

  Kemp, Fraser

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Khabra, Piara S

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

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

  Kingham, Ms Tess

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Lammy, David

  Denham, John

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Laxton, Bob

  Doran, Frank

  Lepper, David

  Dowd, Jim

  Leslie, Christopher

  Drew, David

  Levitt, Tom

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Linton, Martin

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Lloyd, Tony(Manchester C)

  Edwards, Huw

  Love, Andrew

  Efford, Clive

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  McCabe, Steve

  Ennis, Jeff

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Etherington, Bill

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  82

  Macdonald, Calum

  Salter, Martin

  McDonnell, John

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  McIsaac, Shona

  Savidge, Malcolm

  MacShane, Denis

  Sawford, Phil

  McWalter, Tony

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McWilliam, John

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Sheerman, Barry

  Mallaber, Judy

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Maxton, John

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Meale, Alan

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Soley, Clive

  Mitchell, Austin

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Moffatt, Laura

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Morgan, Ms Julie

  Stevenson, George

  Morley, Elliot

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Mountford, Kali

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Mullin, Chris

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Norris, Dan

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Timms, Stephen

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Tipping, Paddy

  Olner, Bill

  Trickett, Jon

  O'Neill, Martin

  Truswell, Paul

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Turner, Dr Desmond

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Pearson, Ian

  Tynan, Bill

  Pendry, Tom

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Pickthall, Colin

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Pike, Peter L

  Wareing, Robert N

  Plaskitt, James

  White, Brian

  Pollard, Kerry

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Pound, Stephen

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Rammell, Bill

  Winnick, David

  Rapson, Syd

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Wood, Mike

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Woodward, Shaun

  Rogers, Allan

  Worthington, Tony

  Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Rooney, Terry

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Rowlands, Ted

  Ruane, Chris

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Ruddock, Joan

  Mr. Don Touhig and

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Mr. David Jamieson.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments):—
  The House divided: Ayes 266, Noes 81.

  Division No. 318]

  [7.22 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Allen, Graham

  Ainger, Nick

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Alexander, Douglas

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  83

  Ashton, Joe

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Flint, Caroline

  Austin, John

  Flynn, Paul

  Banks, Tony

  Follett, Barbara

  Barnes, Harry

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Barron, Kevin

  Foulkes, George

  Battle, John

  Fyfe, Maria

  Beard, Nigel

  Gapes, Mike

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Gerrard, Neil

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Goggins, Paul

  Benton, Joe

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Berry, Roger

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Best, Harold

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Betts, Clive

  Grocott, Bruce

  Blizzard, Bob

  Grogan, John

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Hain, Peter

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Hanson, David

  Browne, Desmond

  Healey, John

  Burden, Richard

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Burgon, Colin

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Heppell, John

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Hill, Keith

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Hope, Phil

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Casale, Roger

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Caton, Martin

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Cawsey, Ian

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Chaytor, David

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Clapham, Michael

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Hurst, Alan

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Hutton, John

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Illsley, Eric

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Clwyd, Ann

  Jenkins, Brian

  Coleman, Iain

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Connarty, Michael

  Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

  Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Cooper, Yvette

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Corbett, Robin

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Corston, Jean

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Cranston, Ross

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Kemp, Fraser

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Khabra, Piara S

  Cummings, John

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Kingham, Ms Tess

  Dalyell, Tam

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Lammy, David

  Davidson, Ian

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Laxton, Bob

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Lepper, David

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

  Leslie, Christopher

  Levitt, Tom

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Denham, John

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Linton, Martin

  Doran, Frank

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Dowd, Jim

  Love, Andrew

  Drew, David

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  McCabe, Steve

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Edwards, Huw

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Efford, Clive

  Macdonald, Calum

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  McDonnell, John

  Ennis, Jeff

  McIsaac, Shona

  Etherington, Bill

  MacShane, Denis

  Fisher, Mark

  McWalter, Tony

  84

  McWilliam, John

  Sawford, Phil

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Mallaber, Judy

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Maxton, John

  Meale, Alan

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Soley, Clive

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Morley, Elliot

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Stevenson, George

  Mountford, Kali

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Mullin, Chris

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Naysmith, Dr Doug Norris, Dan

  Stuart, Ms Gisela Sutcliffe, Gerry

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Olner Bill

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Timms, Stephen

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Tipping, Paddy

  Palmer Dr Nick

  Trickett, Jon

  Pearson, Ian

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Pendry, Tom

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Pike, Peter L

  Tynan, Bill

  Plaskitt, James

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Pollard, Kerry

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Pound, Stephen

  Wareing, Robert N

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  White, Brian

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Radice, Rt Hon Giles

  Rammell, Bill

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Rapson, Syd

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Winnick, David

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Rogers, Allan

  Wood, Mike

  Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

  Woodward, Shaun

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Worthington, Tony

  Rowlands, Ted

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Ruane, Chris

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Wyatt, Derek

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Salter, Martin

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Mr. Don Touhig and

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Mr. David Jamieson.

  NOES

  Allan, Richard

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Amess, David

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Chidgey, David

  Ballard, Jackie

  Chope, Christopher

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Clappison, James

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Bercow, John

  Brady, Graham

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Brake, Tom

  Collins, Tim

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Cotter, Brian

  Breed, Colin

  Cran, James

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Burns, Simon

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Butterfill, John

  Day, Stephen

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  85

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

  Gale, Roger

  Nicholls, Patrick

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Oaten, Mark

  Gill, Christopher

  Öpik, Lembit

  Gray, James

  Paice, James

  Hancock, Mike

  Rendel, David

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Robertson, Laurence

  Harvey, Nick

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Sanders, Adrian

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

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

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Stunell, Andrew

  Keetch, Paul

  Swayne, Desmond

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

  Syms, Robert

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Lansley, Andrew

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Lidington, David

  Tyler, Paul

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Webb, Steve

  Livsey, Richard

  Wells, Bowen

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Whittingdale, John

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Willis, Phil

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Mr. Peter Atkinson and

  Moore, Michael

  Mr. John Randall.

  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House endorses the Government's approach to pensions and other policies for pensioners; notes that the Government has already committed £6½ billion more to pensioner benefits during this Parliament than was planned by the Conservatives, while ensuring that this additional expenditure is funded prudently and consistently with the Government's fiscal rules; strongly agrees with the Government that the basic state pension should be retained as the foundation of pension provision, and that most should be done for those pensioners who need most help through the Minimum Income Guarantee; supports the additional help for pensioner households, including winter fuel payments, which now gives them the equivalent of a further £3 a week and free TV licences for the over 75s, which were introduced from 1st November 2000; also supports the wide range of other measures taken by the Government for pensioners, the record investment in the National Health Service, free eye tests, help with home insulation and concessionary public transport fares and reductions in income taxation; and further agrees with the Government that the next priority should be to help pensioners with moderate savings and small occupational pensions to ensure that their thrift is rewarded and that they are able to share in the rising prosperity of the nation.

  Privatisation
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): We now come to the motion on privatisation. I should announce to the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  7.31 pm
  Mr. Don Foster: I beg to move,
  That this House notes public concern about the effects of railway privatisation and about current plans to privatise National Air Traffic Services and London Underground and opposes the dogmatic pursuit of privatisation in public services.
  I am not surprised that Mr. Speaker chose to select the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister because—disappointingly, given that the Conservative party was responsible for many of the problems through its dogmatic approach to privatisation—it has not even bothered to table an amendment to defend its record. We tabled the motion because the privatised railways are in chaos at present and we are concerned that, if the Government follow their current proposals, we shall end up with exactly the same chaos in the London Underground and National Air Traffic Services.
  When the Conservative party introduced many of its privatisation proposals, the Liberal Democrats warned it that privatisation simply was not the cure for all ills. At that time, the Labour party in opposition entirely agreed with us. The Labour party would accept that both our parties were correct in expressing our concerns. However, it appears that, in office, the Labour party has changed its spots. We are now in danger of seeing a Labour party introducing its own dogmatic approach to privatisation and the real possibility of putting lives at risk with its proposals for the part privatisation of NATS and the underground. It seems that the new Labour party has developed its own form of privatisation dogma.
  The Liberal Democrats are certainly prepared to acknowledge that the private sector and the public sector can benefit from each other. We acknowledge that some of the privatisations that have occurred in recent years have had positive outcomes. Even if British Telecom has some way to go, the liberalisation of the telecommunications industry has undoubtedly brought significant benefits. We also acknowledge that the privatisation of gas and electricity has been instrumental in improving the standards of service offered, even though we were unhappy with the way in which and the price at which that was done.
  It is interesting that some rather bizarre side effects have resulted from those privatisations. I suspect that the Conservative party did not anticipate that the electricity powering the lights in Parliament would come from an electricity company owned by the French Government. Therefore, rather bizarrely, given the views of the Conservative party, any profligacy on our part in this building will lead to a reduction of taxes in France—not what the Tories wanted.
  There has been a growing acceptance that, in certain circumstances, some public services can be delivered by or in partnership with the private sector. A good example is the Government's recent announcement of the concordat between the NHS and the private health care sector. That seems to be a sensible form of partnership between the two sectors.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: Will the hon. Gentleman bring pressure to bear on the French

  87
  authorities to privatise those moribund state organisations in France to ensure that British companies are allowed reciprocity so that they can buy French companies in France?
  Mr. Foster: That is the most bizarre intervention that I have heard for a long time. It is extremely bizarre for the hon. Gentleman, whom I have heard speak passionately against our integration into Europe many times, to express any concern whatever about how industry is organised in France. I hope that the hon. Gentleman, who supports a party that was so passionately committed to privatisation, is prepared to acknowledge that privatisation has involved many problems. I hope that he accepts that, where privatisation involving selling off the family silver and putting money into the Treasury coffers, very often the organisation was sold off far too cheaply and the nation sold short.
  Mr. Paul Keetch: Would my hon. Friend care to comment on the Government's proposals to sell off the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency? Given that that sell-off has few friends in the Ministry of Defence or the American Department of Defence and, indeed, no friends at all on the Select Committee on Defence, is it not another case in which the only friends of the sell-off appear to be in the Treasury?
  Mr. Foster: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is interesting that that case follows the pattern of the way in which the Labour Government are now pursuing privatisation. Having opposed the way in which the railways were privatised, with massive fragmentation, the Government are proposing to split DERA in two and flog off three quarters of the total package to the private sector. That has implications not only for public safety, but for national security.
  As we look back on privatisation, I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House accept that many mistakes were made, details were often not properly thought through and long-term consequences were often ignored for short-term gain. Many such examples abound. We have only to consider the way in which employees lost out, especially in early privatisations. For example, when local government services were privatised, it was ludicrous that the employees who worked in the public sector ended up doing exactly the same job as before, but their wages were lower and they had poorer pensions and conditions.
  Protection was rightly introduced under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981. However, equally bizarrely, transferees are protected, but new employees of the privatised service provider have poorer conditions, so there is a two tier system, which is not likely to raise morale.
  Mr. John Bercow rose—
  Mr. Foster: The hon. Gentleman is desperate to intervene, so I shall give way to him.
  Mr. Bercow: Desperate is scarcely the word. The hon. Gentleman refers to the undervaluation of assets at
  88
  flotation to the private sector. Would he care to cast his mind back and concede that the significance of the privatisation of the bulk of the state industrial sector was that industries which, in public ownership, were costing the Exchequer £50 million a week under the previous Labour Government now contribute tens of millions of pounds a week to the Exchequer?
  Mr. Foster: I certainly do not accept the hon. Gentleman's suggestion. How did the Conservative Government manage to sell off the railway system? Their first act was to pay off £1.6 billion in debt. They ensured that the company's assets were widely spread, and they took various steps to make the company more attractive. If the hon. Gentleman examined the figures for many privatisations—the railways are a good example—he would appreciate that more state money is being put in to subsidise the various services than previously.
  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The hon. Gentleman appears to criticise the privatisation of the railways. I wonder whether he is aware that the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) asked:
  is not the answer to give BR access to the private markets to increase investment and to give private services access to the rail network to increase competition?—[Official Report, 15 October 1991; Vol. 196, c. 148.]
  Does the hon. Gentleman agree with his right hon. Friend?
  Mr. Foster: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that his point is a bit of a damp squib. I had been warned in advance by several Conservative Members that an exocet missile would be coming at me—I was told that a former leader of my party totally disagreed with the way in which the Liberal Democrats, and our predecessor parties, voted on the privatisation of the railways. Fortunately, I took the opportunity to check the record, which showed that my right hon. Friend voted in the same Lobby as the rest of my colleagues.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: So the right hon. Gentleman said one thing and supported another?
  Mr. Foster: No. If the hon. Gentleman studied my right hon. Friend's comments, he would appreciate that my right hon. Friend suggested the possibility of a state-run sector becoming involved within the market. We have no problem with that—we have discussed it on several occasions. It is sad that the hon. Gentleman precisely illustrates my concern about the dogmatic approach that the Conservatives adopt in this context.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Foster: No. I want to make progress.
  Many examples show that the involvement of the private sector in the delivery of public services has not been very smooth. For example, during the early days, Group 4 ran our prisons, and, more recently, there were failures in the administration of housing benefit.
  Mr. Bercow: Group 4 was seven years ago.
  Mr. Foster: I gave a more recent example. Even more recently, the private sector attempted unsuccessfully to

  89
  turn around failing schools. The allegedly incomparable business skills and entrepreneurial flair of the private sector have not, frankly, been a huge benefit. I suspect that few of us support the continued use of the skills and flair of, for example, Connex South Central. The tragedy of the Hatfield rail crash threw the dangers of inappropriate privatisation into stark relief.
  Mrs. Eleanor Laing: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Foster: Not for the moment.
  The public must wonder why, during the past fortnight, whole swathes of our rail network had to be closed at short notice, and whether benefits would result from an approach that fragmented the service into hundreds of parts, which competed against rather than co-operated with each other. They must also wonder how, in recent years, there has been a significant reduction in the number of people employed to check the safety of tracks, a reduction described by Railtrack as an efficiency gain. The public must wonder how Railtrack could put out to contract the safety checking and maintenance of the track and the supervision of that work. It appears that Railtrack wants to distance itself from any responsibility. The public will begin to wonder why the many different contractors, who are all busy trying to out-do each other, do not talk to each other about the crucial issue of rail safety.
  Mr. Phil Willis: Does my hon. Friend find it bizarre that Railtrack's first action was to invest heavily in tarting up Britain's stations rather than in improving outmoded track and signalling systems? In other words, safety was compromised in order to create nice stations at Paddington, York or Leeds.
  Mr. Foster: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, although I should go further. The Government recently introduced a safe stations award. We want stations not only to look pretty but also to be safe and to provide adequate protection to the people who use them. However, after two years, only 63 of 2,500 stations have reached the relevant standards.
  Hon. Members may be particularly surprised by the fact that privatisation of the railways means that Railtrack is fined if it closes track to carry out safety work and fined if it keeps the track open and does not carry out safety work. One might say, "Heads, you lose and tails, you lose."
  The public would be most surprised of all by a report in The Daily Telegraph on Friday, which stated that a busy commuter train had been deliberately driven over a broken track. Railtrack said that it was "standard practice" to pass a train over a suspected break at low speed to assess the defect's seriousness. I find that horrific. Surely Railtrack has more sophisticated testing equipment and does not need to roll a train with 200 passengers on board over damaged rail to assess whether it would be derailed. That is an appalling indictment.
  Mr. Richard Livsey: I am listening carefully to my hon. Friend's speech. Does he agree that the situation is partly due to the incompetence of the contractors chosen by Railtrack to do that work,
  90
  which has often allowed the track to get into that condition? Does he also agree that we need a major investigation into the way in which the railway system was privatised and into the involvement of people who are connected with the Conservative party and with companies that benefited from that privatisation?
  Mr. Foster: My hon. Friend makes his point extremely well. He may not be aware of the full details about the current contractual arrangements between Railtrack and its contractors. If hon. Members studied them, they might be very surprised. Some contractors are given the task of ensuring the safety of the track, and of determining how much work should be done on the track, but they are provided with the same amount of money regardless of how much work is done on the track. Clearly, there is at least a temptation for contractors to minimise the amount of work that is done.
  The public's concerns about rail privatisation make them worried about the Government's proposals for public-private partnerships for the tube.
  Mr. James Gray: I sense that the hon. Gentleman is about to discuss air traffic. The central thrust of his remarks so far has been to suggest, in a slightly snide way, that somehow or other privatisation has led to a decrease in safety on the railways. If so, how does he account for the fact that the number of signals passed at danger are half what they were before privatisation and that the number of fatal accidents has been cut massively? Of course, we all have the recent tragedy in our minds. None the less, there has been a great improvement in rail safety since privatisation. How does he account for that?
  Mr. Foster: I explain it by asking the hon. Gentleman to look again at some of the statistics. The number of broken rails is greater and the overall state of the track is worse than at privatisation. Those are the official figures and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept them.
  Mr. Gray: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Foster: No, because we shall end up by batting statistics—
  Mr. Gray rose—
  Mr. Foster: Very well, I will give way.
  Mr. Gray: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way again, as it is most important to correct the point that he made. He must have listened carefully to the evidence given by Mr. Gerald Corbett to the Transport Sub-Committee of the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs, last Wednesday. Mr. Corbett pointed out that Railtrack was checking 1,800 individual sites and that not one was in anything like the same condition as the broken rail at Hatfield. He said that the state of the railways was vastly better than it was before privatisation. The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) is wrong to say that the railways are worse.
  Mr. Foster: This could become a rather silly argument between the hon. Gentleman and me. I hope that he will

  91
  agree that merely to judge the matter on whether bits of track are in an identical condition to that found at Hatfield is not a fair way to assess the overall quality of the track. It is generally accepted that, overall, the track is in worse condition than at privatisation.
  If the hon. Gentleman wants to get technical, it is more difficult to understand why gauge-corner cracking appears in the new high-stress, steel rails that did not exist at the time of privatisation—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] The installation of those new rails may be leading to greater difficulties than occurred with the old rails. The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) looks surprised, but he should be aware that, in the current programme of work, Railtrack is replacing the more modern rails with the softer type that was used previously. I hope that the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) will not pursue the matter.
  Because of the public's concern about safety as a result of the way in which the railway was privatised, they are understandably anxious about the Government's proposals for the privatisation of National Air Traffic Services and of the London underground. All hon. Members agree that the underground desperately needs urgent attention. Hon. Members may have heard an item on the "Today" programme this morning, which referred to a District line driver who, yesterday, told passengers in his train that
  if you have a camera handy, there's a chance to record a rare sighting of a Circle Line train in its natural habitat.
  It is certainly true that there is overcrowding, delay, unreliability, dirt and discomfort. Decades of neglect have built up a huge backlog of faults and structural failings. We are all aware that at least £1.5 billion is needed to return the tube to a worthwhile condition.
  Mrs. Laing rose—
  Mr. Foster: I want to make some progress.
  How can we deal with the problems? The Liberal Democrat proposal was clear and was well publicised during the London mayoral elections: to allow Transport for London to raise money through a bond issue. We envisaged Transport for London having access to the market at a far cheaper rate—at less expense—than the Government's proposed private sector borrowing arrangement. Under our proposals, the money could be raised more cheaply, with the additional benefit that it would remain under democratic control.
  I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions agrees that the majority of candidates who stood at that election supported our proposals—including the present Mayor of London. Indeed, the only candidate who supported the Government's public-private partnership obtained only 13 per cent. of the votes—such was the popularity of the Government's proposal.
  Yet again, the Government are making a proposal that would lead to the fragmentation of a service—in this case, the tube—allowing different people to buy the various fragments. It is somewhat worrying that the Health and Safety Executive notes that some of the potential purchasers are bodies and organisations which were implicated in some of the safety problems with the
  92
  national rail network. We are deeply concerned about the Government's approach for London underground and equally worried about their proposals for NATS.
  I hope that we all agree that the only purpose of NATS is safety. The Deputy Prime Minister said:
  Air traffic control is all about safety, which must be paramount.—[Official Report, 20 December 1999; Vol. 341, c. 535.]
  In London and the south-east, at any time of day, thousands of aircraft are circling overhead, waiting to land. The demands on air traffic controllers increase monthly. There is little room for manoeuvre.
  Despite all those pressures, NATS has an excellent safety record under its current arrangements. There can be no justification for anything that puts that record at risk. The PPP would provide an unnecessary and dangerous distraction and would put safety in conflict with profit—the same conflict that was so disastrous for our railways.
  The Government claim that they have to adopt that arrangement, but they do not have to do so; it is not even necessary. We agree with the Government that it will be necessary to raise about £1 billion for investment in NATS over the next 10 years. Their proposal is to sell off 51 per cent. of NATS, possibly selling off more at a later date. The new partner will be expected to raise the money for that investment.
  Our argument on raising money for the tube also applies to NATS. It would be cheaper for the Treasury to raise the money than if it were raised by a private sector borrower. Such a borrower would want a return of between 10 and 20 per cent. compared with the 8 per cent. needed by the Treasury. Something will have to go. Our concern is that the something will be safety.
  Mr. Christopher Leslie: Many of the hon. Gentleman's comments will strike the general public as scaremongering. Is he aware that air traffic control in the majority of Britain's airports is already in private or independent ownership? Is he really saying that those airports are less safe as a result?
  Mr. Foster: The hon. Gentleman makes the same mistake as those who suggest that we should no longer be concerned about airline safety after the privatisation of British Airways. The reality is that there is a difference between safety under a monopoly supplier and under a regime of tough competition. The provision of air traffic control is subject to competition at individual airports, just as there is competition between airlines. However, NATS is not subject to competition.
  It is no wonder that so many people oppose the Government's proposals—pilots, air traffic controllers, the chair of the Transport Sub-Committee, and a large number of Labour Members and peers. It is not surprising that the Sub-Committee described the proposal as the worst of all possible options. However, the Government seem to refuse to listen. They are unable to listen to those who know what is at stake; unable to learn from the mistakes of rail privatisation and unable even to remember what they said four years ago.
  Everyone in the House remembers the pledge given at the 1996 Labour conference by the current Chief Secretary to the Treasury. He was cheered to the echo for saying:
  Our air is not for sale.

  93
  Liberal Democrats agreed with him then, and we continue to agree with that sentiment. We have seen no evidence to justify changing our mind.
  The wording of the Government's amendment to our motion is interesting. Labour Members should note that it states that the House should welcome
  the Government's pragmatic policy of developing Public Private Partnerships for National Air Traffic Services and the London Underground.
  Hon. Members should note the word "pragmatic".
  Liberal Democrats certainly prefer a pragmatic to a dogmatic approach. The Oxford English Dictionary defines the word "pragmatic" as
  dealing with things sensibly and realistically.
  We certainly do not accept that the two PPP proposals are sensible or realistic. However—given the Government's apparent refusal to listen to anyone—they perhaps used in the amendment the 16th century definition of the word "pragmatic". That definition is, "busy, interfering, conceited." It is my contention that pressing ahead in the face of significant opposition based on the failures of similar moves elsewhere is conceited. It is not pragmatic; it is dogmatic.
  We hope that Members on both sides of the House will join together to support our motion and to oppose the dogmatic approach to privatisation being adopted by a Labour Government.
  8 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "deplores the previous Government's incompetent privatisation of the railways which left the network fragmented, cost taxpayers billions of pounds and brought rail travellers hours of delays; welcomes the Government's creation of the Strategic Rail Authority to give direction to the industry from an industry-wide perspective rather than from the narrow interests of individual companies; recognises that the Government's 10-year plan is delivering the largest investment programme for the railways for generations to tackle the problems caused by years of under-investment in the public and private sectors; welcomes the Government's pragmatic policy of developing Public Private Partnerships for National Air Traffic Services and the London Underground, enabling much needed investment and private sector financial and management skills to be introduced to the public services while safeguarding safety and the public interest; and regrets the official Opposition's dogmatic pursuit of privatisation for the London Underground and the National Air Traffic Services."
  I have frequently proclaimed my affection and respect for the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), but I fear that he has slipped from his normal high standards on this occasion. I found his speech both disappointing and disingenuous. I could think of another word with the prefix "dis" to describe it, but our parliamentary conventions preclude my use of such a word. However, we all know what is going on here—it is the technique of the big slur.
  The hon. Gentleman begins by citing the widespread, and perfectly understandable, public dissatisfaction with the privatisation of the railways by the previous Administration—a dissatisfaction that has certainly been heightened by recent tragic events and the continued shortcomings of the railway network—but then seeks to tar the Government's wholly different proposals for the
  94
  public-private partnerships in London Underground and National Air Traffic Services with the same brush. It is an attempt at condemnation by innuendo, or guilt by association. It is typical Liberal Democrat opportunism and, as usual, it will not work.
  Mr. Paul Tyler: I do not remember whether the Minister held responsibility for transport issues in the previous Parliament, but does he recall that the Liberal Democrats urged Labour Members to set their faces firmly against the privatisation of Railtrack by making it clear that, if it were to be privatised by the Conservatives, it would be bought back by an incoming Labour Government, with Liberal Democrat support if that was the way that the country had voted? We could have then stopped privatisation in its tracks. I judge from his comments that he still believes that the privatisation of Railtrack was a mistake. Why did the Labour party at that stage not take up our proposal?
  Mr. Hill: I am always rather amused by the Liberal Democrats' rewriting of history. I notice that it is always the Liberals who lead on the issues and the rest of the House seems to follow tamely. However, the Labour party came to a clear judgment before the election and we stated in our manifesto that the reacquisition of the privatised railway system was a cost that was simply not worth bearing when set against other demands on the Exchequer from the nation's priorities of health, education and law and order. That is why we are working to improve the privatised railway system that we inherited in ways that I hope, with the indulgence of the House, I shall be able to describe soon.
  The motion before the House is unacceptable and ought to be rejected. It ought to be rejected not because, as is usually the case, an opposition motion is an expression of opinion that does not reflect the opinion of the majority of the House, but because this motion is—in its premises—quite simply factually wrong.
  The motion describes the Government's proposals for London Underground and NATS as "privatisation". That is just plain wrong. If we were planning to sell off the public's stake in these concerns lock, stock and barrel and pass over ownership and control in their entirety and in perpetuity to the private sector, that would be privatisation. That is what privatisation meant for water, for gas, for electricity, for telecommunications, for coal, for buses and for the railways under the Tories.
  Mr. Don Foster: Given that the Minister's definition of privatisation involves selling off the entirety of a service, will he tell us that, having sold off 51 per cent. of NATS, the Government have no intention whatsoever of selling off any of the remaining 49 per cent? Were he to say that, he would be saying something that totally contradicts what he said in Committee during our consideration of the Transport Bill.
  Mr. Hill: If the hon. Gentleman gives me a chance, I shall come to that issue in due course. What I said with crystal clarity in Committee—as he knows, that is my style—was that any such decision would have to come back to the House for its democratic decision.
  By contrast with the privatisation carried out by the Conservatives, in the case of National Air Traffic Services, the taxpayer will not only retain a major

  95
  shareholding in the public-private partnership. In addition, the Government will appoint "partnership directors" to protect the taxpayers' interest as an investor. Board unanimity will be required on dividends and reinvestment, and a special share will be entrenched in the new company's articles of association to protect the taxpayers' rights in key matters, such as the issue of new shares and dividend policy. Frankly, it is ludicrous to describe those arrangements as a privatisation.
  Mr. Peter Lilley: Will the Minister elucidate a little? Is he saying that selling 51 per cent. does not constitute privatisation and, therefore, that the previous Government's initial sale of 50 per cent. of British Telecom was not an act of privatisation?
  Mr. Hill: I am certainly saying that the Government's proposals for NATS do not constitute privatisation. Indeed, if the right hon. Gentleman had not been so keen to make his point, he might have listened to the reasons that I adduced a little more carefully. If he had, he would have found out that the safeguards entrenched in the arrangements for NATS are totally distinct from, and contradict, any arrangements made for BT or any other privatisation under the previous Administration.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown rose—
  Mr. Hill: I shall wait for a moment before I receive the exocet that has been prepared for me by Conservative central office.
  To return to my thread, it is equally ludicrous to describe as privatisation our proposals for London Underground. They will leave the new public sector London Underground with responsibility for operations and safety, and they mean that a modernised London Underground will return to public ownership at the end of the PPP period.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown rose—
  Mr. Hill: I take pity on the hon. Gentleman, so I shall let him have his moment of glory.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to the Minister for letting me have my moment of glory. Does he agree with the report of the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs? It says:
  The current proposal for a public-private partnership for NATS is, in our view, the worst of all the possible options.
  Given that their lordships—with the assistance of Liberal Democrat peers and some Labour peers—defeated the Government on an important amendment to the Transport Bill last week, will he clearly state whether he intends to try to overturn that amendment in this House and to bring about a public-private partnership for NATS?
  Mr. Hill: On the hon. Gentleman's first point, we do not agree with the judgments expressed in the report of the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs. We found them ill considered and ill thought out. On the question of support for the amendment carried in another place, our position is
  96
  entirely clear. We do not intend to jeopardise the new investment that will flow from the PPP and the improved project management. That is why we shall seek to reverse the amendment in this House.
  Mr. Robert Syms: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Hill: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I do not wish to detain the House for as long as the hon. Member for Bath did. After this intervention, I shall seek to make some progress.
  Mr. Syms: A second amendment carried by the Lords was designed to protect the pensions of NATS employees and to include provision for doing that in the Bill. Do the Government intend to overturn that amendment, too?
  Mr. Hill: We want to look at that amendment very carefully, and we will return to that in due course.
  The public-private partnerships that we are putting in place for London Underground and NATS are neither privatisations nor, as the motion would have it, remotely inspired by dogma. After all, by what stretch of even the Liberal Democrats' lurid imagination could the Labour party and this Government be charged with a dogmatic commitment to privatisation? On the contrary, those PPPs represent carefully devised, appropriate and pragmatic solutions that deliver the best possible outcomes for the underground and NATS. They are the solutions that the Government's amendment commends to the House.
  It is indisputable that the British Rail privatisation was flawed. The Labour party spelled out its alternative approach in its general election manifesto—and we have delivered in government. We have set up the shadow Strategic Rail Authority to provide leadership and direction. The Transport Bill will establish the SRA proper and provide for stronger accountability and enforcement. Our 10-year plan provides the resources for massive investment in the railway: £49 billion over 10 years, including £7 billion of public money for a rail modernisation fund.
  In the past few weeks, the Rail Regulator has published the results of his review of Railtrack's access charges for maintenance and renewal, including necessary expenditure on safety improvements. By the end of this year, Railtrack's industrywide safety responsibilities will be separated from its commercial operations. Next year, Lord Cullen will publish his report on the Ladbroke Grove accident and on the culture and management of railway safety. Those initiatives herald more investment, more public accountability and a better deal for passengers—including a safer railway.
  Mr. Lembit Öpik: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Hill: I will give way, but after doing so I must make progress.
  Mr. Öpik: On a non-confrontational point, the Minister is describing how he will try to make rail privatisation work. One very common and specific problem arises when companies such as Northern Spirit and Virgin Trains abandon passengers at stations other than their final destination. Customers often have to haggle with

  97
  station staff for a taxi or some other means of completing their journeys. Will the Minister give me a commitment that one thing for which the money and his legislative powers will be used will be ensuring that those companies make it easy for customers to get to where they need to go even if they are abandoned at a station on the way?
  Mr. Hill: In a non-confrontational way, I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that a very dissatisfactory situation all too often prevails in our railway system. Frankly, the train operating companies ought to be improving their act right now. We inherited some flawed franchising agreements. We are in the process of refranchising and certainly expect to wrest from those contracts much higher standards of customer care along the lines that the hon. Gentleman has outlined.
  I think that we can all agree on the scale of the financial problems faced by the underground, and the need for urgent measures to deal with them. The previous Government left a huge investment backlog on the tube, and their public expenditure plans envisaged still further cuts in funding.
  We set about dealing with the underfunding immediately. In March 1998, we announced an additional £365 million of funding for London Transport over and above existing plans. In July 1999, we announced that we were allocating £517 million of additional resources to London Transport over two years, to help it deliver real improvements to passengers in the run-up to the PPP. In the Budget this year, we announced that a further £65 million would be allocated to London Underground in 2000–01—plus an additional £40 million to deal with claims on the Jubilee line extension.
  The extra funding still does not provide a long-term solution to the underground's funding problems. Even with the increases, London Underground is left with changes every year to its funding arrangements, making it impossible for it to plan its investment efficiently. That is what the PPP is designed to transform. It is quite wrong to suggest that the PPP is in some way like rail privatisation, and that it will somehow undermine safety. In fact, the whole point of the London Underground PPP is to learn from the mistakes of previous privatisations, not to repeat them.
  That is why the PPP structure is so different from a privatisation. It is based on fixed-term contracts rather than permanent transfers to the private sector. So assets will return to the public sector in a much improved condition. The PPP structure retains clear public sector accountability from the outset. Statutory safety responsibility for the whole underground remains with public sector London Underground. Indeed, the recent Industrial Society report that was commissioned by the Mayor of London on the PPP said that it
  recognises the special effort made by Government in ensuring that safety is managed centrally and rests ultimately in public sector hands.
  Dr. Jenny Tonge: The Minister will appreciate how successful bond issues for funding public transport have been in the United States. Will he explain why it is such a bad idea here and why the Government will not consider it?
  Mr. Hill: That is exactly what I intend to do. I noticed that the Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member
  98
  for Bath, skated over the Liberal Democrat proposals. I intend to give them careful scrutiny and to explain precisely the reasons for rejecting them.
  I return to the question of the proposed PPP for London Underground. Unlike on the privatised railways, there will be no separation between train and track infrastructure maintenance. London Underground will retain responsibility for all operational matters—from switching signals to driving trains and staffing stations. So it will be a far more unified system.
  The PPP will also be subject to two key validation tests: safety and value for money. On safety, we have consistently made it clear that the PPP will not proceed unless it can be shown that it will make a substantial contribution to improved safety. As I have said, the safety regime for the PPP retains a structure in which statutory responsibility for safety of the whole network remains with public sector London Underground.
  The transition to the new arrangements for the PPP requires three sets of changes to London Underground's safety case—to ensure that safety is maintained and improved both in the run-up to the PPP and when it is under way. Two of those revised safety cases have already been approved by the Health and Safety Executive. The transition process also requires a safety audit, which will begin shortly, and the submission and acceptance of the third set of changes to the safety case.
  I am not making any new political commitment when I say that the PPP will not proceed unless and until the HSE has taken an independent view and has stated that it is satisfied with the revised safety case. I am simply stating the legal position. Our plans will deliver a network that is publicly run, publicly accountable and properly financed. It will reverse the increase in serious injuries that we have seen on the tube over the past 10 years.
  The second key test for the PPP, after safety, is value for money. As the House will be aware, London Transport and its advisers have been devising a public sector comparator against which the bids for the PPP will be judged. Bids will be considered against not only traditional funding methods but a public sector bond option. We have published the methodology for that comparator, which has been independently audited by KPMG.
  Most importantly, in August, the National Audit Office—Parliament's public expenditure watchdog—announced that it would bring its scrutiny of the comparator forward so that it could report on it before contracts were signed. That will ensure that the comparator represents a fair and rigorous test of the PPP bids.
  Mr. Bercow: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Hill: I know that the hon. Gentleman has not yet intervened, but I hope that he will forgive me for not giving way because I need to make progress. If I feel that I have made satisfactory progress, I will of course yield to him in due course. After all, he used to represent me on Lambeth council—albeit not, I hasten to add, with the benefit of my vote.
  The Liberal Democrats' alternative to the PPP is a bond option. Fair enough—we are not dogmatically opposed to bonds, but we do not believe they are the right solution for the underground. They would do nothing to bring management efficiencies to the system; they would

  99
  introduce a further delay in getting a financing regime in place; and, as the Industrial Society itself concedes, they would not be a realistic prospect without new powers to raise local taxes. We do not believe Londoners want more delay—perhaps of up to two years—in modernising the tube, nor do we think that they want to pay more taxes, or to confer tax-raising powers on the Mayor and the Greater London Assembly.
  We are convinced that the PPP is the best option for NATS; let me explain why. NATS provides a world-class service, but air traffic is growing by more than 5 per cent. each year and increasing delays are inevitable unless significant improvements are made to the system. We are already addressing these needs: the £700 million Swanwick centre will open in the winter of 2001–02. However, NATS managers say that they also need more than £1 billion over the next 10 years to invest in safety. In particular, major investment is needed to bring the new Scottish centre at Prestwick on stream when it is needed, probably by 2007–08.
  Under the PPP, we will bring in a long-term strategic partner from the private sector that will fund and deliver the next generation air traffic control system. Under the PPP, NATS will be freed from Government financial constraints. With stable and long-term funding provided by the strategic partner, NATS will be able to plan its investment to provide significant benefits to the United Kingdom, airlines and their passengers as soon as possible. Freedom from Government financial constraints will also put NATS in a good position to export its expertise at a time when there is an increasing realisation that international air traffic control systems must be consolidated if they are to be able to cope with continuing increases in air traffic.
  We have rejected the privatisation of NATS precisely because we do not believe that it would provide the necessary safeguards that the travelling public deserves. Crucially, under the PPP, we are able to build in specific safeguards that would not be possible under a privatisation. For example, as I have already said, by retaining a significant shareholding, the Government will retain the right to appoint directors to the board of the company. Under the PPP, the main strategic decisions of the NATS board will require a unanimous vote of all directors, including those who will be appointed by the Government. Under that structure, the Government and the taxpayer will also be able to share in the future success of the PPP and to have a say in key decisions affecting the company. None of that would be possible with a 100 per cent. sell-off.
  Air traffic control is all about safety. That will continue to be the overriding priority under the PPP. That is why we have amended the Transport Bill in another place to make it clear that maintaining a high level of safety in the provision of air traffic services must have priority over every other consideration when functions are exercised under the legislation.
  Of course, setting up the PPP is also crucial in delivering the final and complete separation between safety regulation by the Civil Aviation Authority and the provision of air traffic control services by NATS. The mid to late 1990s saw a 35 per cent. increase in the number of risk-bearing air proxes involving commercial air transport. That is why we are determined to strengthen
  100
  aviation safety by separating air traffic services from safety regulations, which is something that the industry, the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs and other aviation interests have sought for some years now.
  It goes without saying that our proposals for a NATS PPP have proved contentious, but everyone, including the Select Committee and the unions, accepts that doing nothing is not an option. We have considered various other funding mechanisms, including trusts, bonds, and publicly owned companies, but we are convinced that none of those will deliver all the benefits that a PPP will provide.
  The Liberal Democrats want a not-for-profit company to take over NATS. The reasoning behind this is, I assume, to establish that profit is not put before safety. Let me reassure the House that the PPP will not jeopardise safety: rather, it is designed to enhance the safety regime for air traffic control. Safety regulation will remain firmly in the public sector in a reformed CAA and, as I have just said, we have amended the Transport Bill to reiterate our commitment to safety. In short, I do not accept the profit-before-safety argument, and nor should the House.
  I should stress that there is nothing in the PPP structure or in the Transport Bill that would prevent a viable not-for-profit company from becoming our strategic partner, but for us to take a view on what offers the best future for NATS, there needs to be a competitive process which allows rational assessment of the bids we receive. Any not-for-profit bid needs to stand up and be assessed alongside the others. Limiting the selection criteria in the way the Liberal Democrats propose would knock out potential candidates who might, at the end of the day, be a better partner.
  Other funding mechanisms for NATS have also been mentioned in the past, including trusts, bonds and publicly owned companies. We have considered those options, but we are convinced that none of them will deliver all the benefits that a PPP will provide. Last week, we announced that we have three robust potential strategic partners for NATS. We shall now work with those world-class consortiums to find the best option for the future of the company and of air traffic control in the UK.
  I have gone out of my way to set out the grounds for rejecting the alternatives for the future of NATS and the London Underground propounded by the Liberal Democrats. Given the deplorable terms of their motion, there are those who might take the view that I have been too generous and reasonable in my response. However, let us not lose sight of the real villains of the piece: the gung-ho privatisers of the official Opposition, who, despite all the evidence, still advocate the wholesale privatisation of the underground and air traffic services. Will they never learn?
  The Conservatives privatised and deregulated the bus industry, with the result that bus passenger journeys went down by a third and bus services in the countryside were decimated. The Labour Government have stemmed the decline in bus passenger numbers: through our rural bus grant, last year, 16 million new passenger journeys were enjoyed by country people benefiting from new and enhanced rural bus services.

  101
  The Conservatives privatised the railway, broke it up into 100 parts and got an appalling deal for the taxpayer into the bargain.
  Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, even though he has never allowed the facts to intrude on his private prejudices. Given that, this year, London Underground will receive an investment that is precisely £282 million less than was provided in the last year of Conservative Government, how does he justify the expenditure by his Administration of more than £60 million on consultancy fees in connection with a botched privatisation?
  Mr. Hill: That is rich coming from a member of the Conservative party, which spent £450 million on a rail sell-off that will deliver less to the travelling passenger and the taxpayer than the London Underground PPP will achieve. Let me allow the facts to intrude on the debate: were the hon. Gentleman to take the trouble to look at the forward projections of the public expenditure figures produced by the last Conservative Government in 1996, he would find that projected investment by central Government in London Underground this year was zero. He is on pretty thin ice when he condemns the Labour Government, who have invested £1.6 billion in London's underground system in our three years in office.
  When the Tories left office, Railtrack was £700 million behind in its investment programme. With Labour, rail investment is now 33 per cent. higher than in 1997, and we have announced plans for a massive injection of £49 billion into the rail system over the next 10 years. The Conservatives left a £1.2 billion investment backlog in the tube; they made a £400 million cut in tube investment in their last Budget; and, if they had stayed in office, they would by now have cut Government funding to London Underground to zero. Yet now the Conservatives have the effrontery to propose the full-scale privatisation of London Underground, breaking it up into five companies competing with each other, and they still want to sell off NATS lock, stock and barrel. If we are talking about dogma, they are the dogmatists. Like the Bourbons, they have learned nothing and forgotten nothing.
  We have learned from the mistakes of the dogma-driven programme of the previous Administration. We are working hard to put right the mistakes made on the railways, and we have developed innovative, custom-built solutions for the underground and NATS. That is the right way forward, and that is why the House should reject the disreputable and opportunistic motion tabled by the Liberal Democrats and support the Government's sensible and forward-looking amendment.
  I commend the amendment to the House.
  8.30 pm
  Mr. Robert Syms: In the early years of the previous century, Sidney and Beatrice Webb and the Fabians had high hopes that central planning and governmental control were the way of the future. By the end of the century, the overwhelming lesson was that that did not work and never had any chance of working. Around the world—not only in Europe, but in the far east and South America—most countries, whatever the political persuasion of their Governments, are privatising industries and looking to free enterprise to deliver the goods.
  102
  A free enterprise system is more likely to generate wealth, innovation and enterprise. It is more likely to devolve decision making to millions of people who are consumers and who, through the market mechanism, make choices. That mechanism has proved over the past century to be the one that delivered the best economic outcomes. Even left-wing politicians have concluded that free enterprise is best and that one can control an agenda without having to own an industry.
  The one party that seems to have a problem with that notion is the Liberal Democrats. I know that the past century did not treat them well, and if they continue in their current vein, this century will not treat them well either. The social democrats in Germany dropped their Marxist tag in 1959, the socialists in Spain did so in the 1970s and became the Government throughout the 1980s, and even the Labour party, one of the most conservative institutions in this country, dropped clause IV, because it did not see the relevance. [Interruption.] I hear someone mutter, "Not all of us." That is a good point—only last week an hon. Member asked the Prime Minister about renationalising the rail industry. The Labour party still has not quite adapted to the changes that its constitution has produced, but it is going in the right direction.
  Free enterprise brings home the bacon and is the system most consistent with democratic government, because it devolves decision making. The Conservative party has been a defender of free enterprise for most of the past century because as a party we realise that property and a diverse economy are essential for a healthy nation. We defended free enterprise even when the Labour party tried to nationalise and control. We have always been proud of that, but not for any great dogmatic reason.
  One could probably say of the private sector the same as Churchill said of democracy: he said that democracy was the worst system, except for all the alternatives. Free enterprise requires a sensible competition policy, and capitalists must be prevented from taking advantage of people, because the natural capitalist tendency is sometimes to do that. Government have a role to play in setting parameters, setting rules and ensuring that fraudsters have no place in the system.
  During its 18 years in office, the Conservative party found that a shake-up of the large state sector would result in substantial gains. The burden on the state was extensive in terms of taxpayers' subsidies. As my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) made clear, what has changed and what has assisted the current Chancellor's finances is that instead of the taxpayer being a contributor to many industries, many companies that were in the public sector are contributing through corporation tax and are more efficient organisations than they were.
  Many industries that were privatised by the previous Government have been able to expand overseas, investing in other countries and creating great world-class companies. We are a great trading nation, and many companies have expanded and undertaken projects that they would not have considered in an earlier generation. We now have a worldwide perspective. The lessons of that Government have been learned not only in this country but abroad, where many Conservative policies have been adopted because of the benefits that have become apparent.

  103
  The Conservative party is pragmatic in its approach and looks at each individual case on its merits. The Defence Evaluation and Research Agency was mentioned earlier. It would be surprising to find my party in the same Lobby as the Government on DERA, because there are real concerns about our relations with the Americans and our defence interests. It would be wrong to suggest that we wanted to privatise everything in sight.
  With regard to National Air Traffic Services, in principle we would prefer a proper privatisation, with a listing, to create a world-class company. However, NATS is a difficult matter. If it were an easy privatisation or a popular one, I expect that Baroness Thatcher or my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) would have privatised it when in office, but the issues are complex and the benefits of privatisation are a little less obvious than in some other areas, not least because most of the income derived from NATS comes from international treaties negotiated across Europe and across the world.
  The ability of NATS to generate more income is dependent on the volume of air movements increasing. Unlike previous privatisations, such as that of BAA, which is a great retailing company that has expanded across the world and opened many stores, NATS cannot generate significantly more income, as the Government evidently expect it to do.
  We should remind the Government that when they were in opposition, they said that our air was not for sale. They did not include their proposals for NATS in their manifesto. What the Lords have done is sensible—they have asked the Government to think again. In the case of the British Telecom flotation, we allowed the electorate to make its choice. We passed legislation and had a general election. Only after we were confirmed in office did we proceed with the flotation. It would not be unreasonable for the Government to accept the Lords amendment, put it in their manifesto, fight an election on it and, if Labour is successful in being re-elected, carry it through.
  As I made clear in an intervention, I am also interested in whether the Government will reverse another amendment to protect the pensions of NATS staff. I hope that the Under-Secretary will give us more information on that.
  The Government's solution for NATS is bizarre. They began with a proposal for 49 per cent. Government ownership, 46 per cent. private ownership and 5 per cent. of shares for NATS staff. That was to be done not through a listing but by negotiating with a private strategic partner. The Government have no clear idea about how employees can benefit. There has been talk of setting up a trust to enable the 5 per cent. shares that the staff own to be internally traded. I hope that the Under-Secretary can give us more information about the way in which staff could benefit from such trading.
  We are also worried about the identity of the strategic partner, and especially about foreign ownership. There is a defence element to the topic that we are discussing. Anxiety therefore exists about foreign ownership, especially by a company that has substantial state ownership. Now that the Government have received some
  104
  expressions of interest, I hope that they can reassure hon. Members that the strategic partner is not likely to be a foreign company with heavy state ownership.
  Mr. Geraint Davies: How does the hon. Gentleman reconcile his worries about foreign ownership with his desire for wholesale privatisation?
  Mr. Syms: We should do our best to protect an independent British company. A strategic partnership, possibly with a foreign-controlled company, which provides air traffic services, might skew policy. I would require substantial reassurance before entering into a relationship with a foreign-owned company, especially if it was owned by a foreign Government. There was talk about the French company Thomson CSF being one of the strategic partners. I should therefore like the Minister to tell us more about the number of organisations that have expressed an interest and with which the Government are currently negotiating. There is currently great uncertainty.
  The Government believe in spending money on consultants and have spent £2.2 million on them. We had a short debate in Committee about the money that would be generated from NATS. There was some confusion about it. Perhaps the Under-Secretary can give us more information about the income that will be generated. He gave us an assurance in Committee that the money would be used by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, not the Treasury. On what will it be spent? If those questions are answered, we shall have a clearer idea of the Government's thinking.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend knows that NATS has outstanding loans of approximately £300 million. That money is urgently needed to pay for the new facility at Prestwick. Will my hon. Friend press the Under-Secretary to say when the proceeds from the public-private partnership are likely to be received? If there is a delay, safety could be jeopardised because the facility at Prestwick will not be built on time.
  Mr. Syms: I shall not answer my hon. Friend directly because the Under-Secretary heard the question and will doubtless take it into account. Time is limited, and several hon. Members want to speak.
  The Government presented an optimistic scenario about the results of their policy. They stated in Committee that they and many people believed that the number of air traffic control centres in Europe would be reduced to two and that one of the benefits of privatisation—or PPP as the Government call it—is that Britain would be in a strong position to provide them. I cannot envisage other nations allowing their aerospace to be controlled from Britain. There is a danger that we might be the loser in that competition, especially if there is some foreign ownership, control or influence over what happens in our aerospace. Our solution is better; the Government's is over complicated, but at least they will have an opportunity to reconsider when the Lords amendments are presented.
  The target date for the strategic partner has been given as March 2001. I hope that the Under-Secretary will be able to tell hon. Members whether the date remains relevant.

  105
  Hon. Members have raised the issue of safety. There is a strong culture of safety in aerospace and in NATS, and I do not subscribe to the idea that following the route that we are considering is likely to be detrimental to safety. The Minister clearly set out some of the reasons for that. Nevertheless, there are anxieties, and reassurances should be given. The Select Committee has criticised the proposal, but I shall not go into that.
  We have heard that the Government intend to overturn the Lords amendment that relates to delay. We hope that the Minister will give us more information about what the Government intend to do about including protection for pensioners in the Bill.
  We have a general concern about aerospace policy, and particularly the role of Eurocontrol, which we spent many happy and productive hours debating in Committee. We have concerns also about the European Community's single sky policy and how that will impact on Britain's aerospace policy.
  We privatised the railways, and not for any great political benefit to the Conservative party. I do not believe that there was any such benefit to be gained by doing so. We privatised them because we felt that there would be a benefit to the nation. Mainly, we wanted to attract substantially more private money and investment into the industry. During the 40 years from 1952, the share of journeys made by rail fell from 17 per cent. to only 5 per cent. The amount of goods moved by rail dipped dramatically from 42 per cent. to 7 per cent. British Rail had been allowing our railways to go into genteel decline over many decades. If we are to have a world-class economy—ours is the fourth largest economy in the world—we must have a transport infrastructure that delivers the goods. I believe that the Conservative Government were right to privatise the railways. The benefits of privatisation will be seen only over a number of decades because of the backlog of under-investment of a nationalised industry.
  I say that we did the right thing, but that does not mean that we got everything absolutely right. There are many areas where there can be improvement and systems need to be worked better. As we have heard in the debate, in various interventions, there is some division about whether the current system is safer than the previous system. The figures show that the current system is safer. However, we must all be concerned that our railways are not as safe as those in continental Europe. We should try to prevent any accidents. We must do far more in terms of safety.
  The Opposition have raised several concerns, especially about the interaction of the Rail Regulator and Railtrack and the fining network. That is one area where we should examine carefully whether the post-privatisation system is working as it should. It seems somewhat perverse that Railtrack is fined if it tries to repair certain stretches of railway, and the fine level suggested by the Rail Regulator has increased quite substantially. We have concerns about that, and that is why the other day we called for the new deal that the Rail Regulator announced to be risk assessed. The regulator has no direct role in terms of safety. That was our major concern.
  Overall, I think that privatisation has been successful. There was a 5 per cent. increase in passenger journeys between May 1997 and September 1999, with rail patronage now the highest in 40 years. Domestic rail
  106
  freight increased by 15 per cent. in two years. More than 1,300 more trains are being run daily to meet increased demands. Since 1997, 13 new stations and more than 50 new freight terminals have opened. Rolling stock worth £1.95 billion has been ordered for delivery by 2002. There were 480 safe station car parks on the national rail network with CCTV or video surveillance by the end of January 2000. Much progress has been made, but much more still needs to be done.
  London Underground caters for 3 million trips per week day, including journey-to-work trips made by 35 per cent. of those in central London. About 90 per cent. of tourists use the tube during their stay in London. It generates more than £1.1 billion in fare revenue annually. With 3,954 railway cars travelling on more than 1,140 km of track, the underground now carries more passengers than the entire rail network in the UK. It is undoubtedly the only real method of rapidly transporting large numbers of people round London.
  It is important to get things right. That is desperately important for our capital. My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) made it clear that when the previous Conservative Government left office, investment in the underground was substantially more than it is now. This year, the tube will receive £753 billion, which is a substantial reduction on the £1,035 billion that the Conservative Government were investing in 1996–97. Part of the problem is that the tube needs a great deal more investment. The delays and the Government's decision to go for such a convoluted public-private partnership have contributed to the rundown of the network.
  In the Labour party 1997 election manifesto, the Prime Minister promised London:
  Labour will improve the Underground and guarantee value for money for taxpayers and passengers.
  However, the Government are unlikely to deliver on that with the plans they have set out. Labour's PPP has been described as
  half baked and either naive or dishonest
  by The Economist; a "convoluted compromise" by the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs; and
  towards the bottom of the list of options
  by Peter Ford, a former chairman of London Transport. It has not had the rave reviews that the Government would have wanted. The privatisation will be botched. My concern is that they will give privatisation a bad name, as they have with NATS.
  Proposals for the tube include a one-off finance deal for a 30-year period to fund the investment and maintenance backlog. That cannot finance route extensions and new lines, which a privatised underground would be able to do. London Underground will still be run by a single state-owned company, and investment decisions will be dictated by politics. The nationalised industry culture will remain and there will be few incentives for higher standards and innovation. Furthermore, Maurice Fitzpatrick, head of economics at Chantrey Vellacott DFK, has estimated that fares will have to rise by 30 per cent. under Labour's botched privatisation. That is hardly value for money. At the start of the year, fares for a single journey in zone 1 increased by 7 per cent., but people have not seen much improvement in the service.

  107
  We want fully to privatise the underground, and we want to issue shares to generate badly needed funds for investment. We are also keen to give shares to Londoners, members of staff and season ticket holders, so that we give the tube back to Londoners. It is important that we get the policy right. Privatisation is one way in which we could improve the tube. It would certainly reduce traffic congestion in our capital. The Jubilee line—a fine Conservative project—has air conditioning, and it has shown how important it is that whoever takes over the tube spends money on air conditioning for the system and on building new underground lines. We do not want to stick where we are; we want to improve the network substantially.
  The Conservative party is pragmatic. Conservatives believe in free enterprise. We are not ashamed of anything that we have done because we have delivered a more efficient economy. Its growth over the past few years—even under this Government—has, to a large extent, been due to the fact that it is more flexible and efficient, which is a result of many of the reforms introduced by the noble Baroness Thatcher and my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon. Although we are concerned about the direction of the Government's policy on NATS, we are more concerned about their plans for the underground.
  We are not complacent about the railways. We appreciate that there is a long way to go to improve the network, but we still believe that the direction that we took was right. If the Government believed that we were wrong, they would have tried to change the structure that they inherited when we spent six happy months together debating all the clauses—all the bits and pieces—of the Transport Bill. Apart from the Strategic Rail Authority and the regulator, the Government have, on the whole, run the system as they inherited it because they have accepted that they can work with the system that the previous Government left them. The Conservative party will be constructive. We certainly want to improve the safety record and, if the Government do what is right, we will back them.
  8.54 pm
  Mr. Geraint Davies: I am pleased to return to the House after a week of paternity leave. A week ago, in the midst of a storm, my wife gave birth to a daughter. For that reason, my mood is naturally one of benevolence towards the Liberal Democrats, and I would have loved to agree with the sentiments expressed in their motion but for three reasons: the motion is opportunist, it is irresponsible, and it is financially incoherent.
  The proposals that we are discussing must be seen in the context of Labour's 10-year plan for an extra £180 billion of investment in our transport infrastructure, to build a new integrated transport infrastructure for Britain. If I may put it simply, £56 billion of that will be private money that is being levered in by private-public partnership. The first question to the Liberal Democrats must be, where will that £56 billion come from? Will it come from another 2p on income tax?
  While I am on the subject of financial incoherence—
  Mr. Michael Moore: I am sure the hon. Gentleman is prepared to
  108
  acknowledge that the £56 billion of private investment is not spelt out in detail anywhere in the Government's proposals. Surely it is an indicative sum, with no backing whatever.
  Mr. Davies: As I proceed, I shall isolate specific amounts of private-sector investment. Perhaps the Liberals will let us know where they would get the money.
  As well as the extra 2p on income tax that the investment would inflict on the public, we must bear in mind the recent Liberal U-turn on fuel tax. Only a year or so ago, the Liberal Democrats were saying that their promised extra billions of expenditure would be predicated on environmental taxation, especially fuel taxation. They now say that for five years there will be a freeze on fuel duty, irrespective of the world price of oil. If the world price of oil falls from its current level of $34 a barrel to $10, and everyone suddenly starts driving more and doing a lot of environmental damage, the Liberals will apparently retain the freeze. That is sheer opportunism, and I fear that the leader of the Liberal party is on the waiting list for a spine transplant.
  Mr. Don Foster: It does the House a great disservice to misrepresent the position of any political party. I know that the hon. Gentleman missed a debate on this subject, but he will, I hope, be well aware that the Liberal Democrats have changed their policy because they have now found better ways of targeting the key issues of congestion and pollution. When a better way can be found, it is sensible to change.
  Given that we have changed, it is interesting to note that all independent commentators say that only the Liberal Democrats have transport policies that are likely to solve the country's transport difficulties.
  Mr. Davies: That is false. In fact I did attend the debate that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, and I ask him to set the record straight.
  If, for argument's sake, the world price of oil dropped to $10 a barrel in two years' time, would the hon. Gentleman's policy enable him to increase fuel duty? I think the answer is no.
  Liberal policy is based on the assumption that fuel duty will not change, irrespective of the world price of oil. As I have said, that is an incoherent and opportunist position; what is more, it shoots a big black hole in the Liberal finances, ripped even deeper by the latest proposition that private money—it seems—is dirty money in today's Britain. That is an outdated and outmoded view.
  Mr. Foster: I do not wish to go into the difficulties experienced by the hon. Gentleman and his party when the Prime Minister is not even prepared to support such moves as congestion charging. I simply ask the hon. Gentleman this: if on Wednesday the Chancellor of the Exchequer announces proposals to freeze fuel duty, as is widely predicted in the newspapers, will the hon. Gentleman vote against the Chancellor?
  Mr. Davies: I will not support the proposal to freeze fuel duty for five years regardless of the global price of oil, as that would be foolish. I accept that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor may, in the short term, choose to

  109
  freeze duty or change it in any way that he sees fit. However, he will give himself the flexibility to alter our tax position in the light of world conditions, the environmental threat and problems faced by this country. People listening to our debate should be aware that while we have slightly higher fuel duty than the rest of Europe, we have much lower tax overall. Our tax position is correct, not the European one. We will find that harmonisation is moving towards the Labour way, not the running-scared Liberal Democrat way.
  As for privatisation versus PPP, it has been suggested that privatisation and the Government's position are precisely the same. I am a member of the Public Accounts Committee, which, in July 1999, received a report on the privatisation of our railtrack system, which took place just before the 1996 election and which, in my view, was an appalling act of robbery. The British taxpayer saw our railtrack system sold for less than £2 billion but, by July 1999, when we received the report, it was worth £8 billion. People will not witness that sort of situation under this Government. The Tories take the same position on the tube, and believe that we should sell it off cheap so that, before anyone knows it, the private sector owner will have jacked up prices and reduced the number of people who use the tube. That would serve neither the public purse nor the passenger and would be a Tory rip-off that, like the privatisation of the railways, would lead to a fragmented and incoherent shambles.
  We inherited such a position, which is why we introduced the Strategic Rail Authority, which has a co-ordinating role. We shall invest an extra £60 billion through our 10-year-plan, much of which will be private money. On the issue of PPP and Railtrack, hon. Members may not know that the SRA has 1 million shares in Railtrack. If there is increasing subsidy from the public sector, one wonders whether the public think that we should take a greater equity share in getting feedback and having a proper PPP. That should be part of the future debate about the restructuring of Railtrack, not least because a greater Government stake would enable Railtrack to borrow more money for investment from the City. A greater stake would mean less public investment and more investment from the private sector.
  Our debate is about how we maximise the leverage of private sector money in our transport infrastructure. That is a precondition for safety, as investment is the first thing that safety needs. The Liberal Democrat motion does not allow for the approach of trying to maximise partnership, investment and value for money for the taxpayer. The Public Accounts Committee will examine that matter when it looks at its options.
  Before coming to this grand place, I was the leader of the largest local authority in London and oversaw the introduction of Tramlink. I very much hope that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will come and visit Tramlink, which, in six months of operation, is already the most successful tram system in Britain. It is more successful than the system in Manchester and has levered in £100 million of private money, as well as £125 million of public money. Unlike the Jubilee line, which was heralded by the Tories as a great Tory success, Tramlink was not delayed for a year and billions of pounds over-budget because we managed the contract correctly. In fact, Tramlink was delayed, which shows that the public sector does not have a monopoly in delays. However, the cost of that delay—or the risk—was transferred to the private sector.
  110
  The issue is therefore about finding value for money and transferring risk. It is all very well for the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) to say that it is cheaper for the Treasury to borrow money, but is that so? One must look at cost and time overruns and consider their price. The matter is not just about the cost of capital, so the Liberal Democrat position is rather naive. There is a choice between Liberal Democrat dogma, Tory failure and the success of this Government.
  The first question that has to be asked is—I have been asking it throughout—do the Liberal Democrats rule out a public-private partnership? If they do not, what sort of PPP do they rule in? Then we are in a different debate.
  Someone asked me specifically for examples of extra cash. The channel tunnel is levering in an extra £3.3 billion, the tube £8 billion and National Air Traffic Services £1.3 billion. That is £12.6 billion. Where is that coming from? "Another few pence on income tax," is the normal response from the irresponsible Liberal Democrats.
  Then we get into, "We will not do that. We will take the Canadian trust model, we will do tube bonds or whatever." The Minister has made it clear that the Public Accounts Committee will analyse the value-for-money options objectively. As a member of that Committee, I am open-minded about the different vehicles. The issue is how to get the best value for money in the right amount of time to deliver the standards that the public demand after years of neglect from the Tories. It is about independent regulation, risk transfer and investment in safety.
  The next question that was posed is: can the private sector deliver safety? The dogmatic presumption of the Liberal Democrats was that private means unsafe because of profit-grabbing capitalists. We only have to compare British Airways with Aeroflot. What are the issues? They are investment and regulation, not simply ownership.
  After all, let us face it: one of the reasons why there is underinvestment in NATS is because the Tory Government had other priorities for expenditure. If they wanted to spend more on tax cuts, the national health service or whatever, they could squeeze NATS. PPP gives a guaranteed cash flow and certainty for investment. It enables NATS to invest in innovation in safety, rather than leaving the situation static.
  Air traffic is growing year on year at 6 per cent. To a great extent, the challenge in terms of safety is an information technology challenge: how do we get the computer systems, the IT technology, to manage the system? The question is: where are the skills in the marketplace? As a member of the PAC, I have seen many reports on public sector management of computer systems for national insurance, immigration or whatever. It is not a very good record. The skills are in the private sector. That is another reason why we need a PPP—to ensure investment, smart purchasing, smart operation and safety.
  Safety is a cost—it is true—but it is also a product for sale. It needs innovation. People who give me lectures but who have never been in a business in their life might not understand that.
  Again, it is about skills and technology. Who knows about that? What is the right structure? "How much public, how much private?" is not an a priori dogmatic question. It is an empirical question about what is right—what is the right mix in a certain situation. What can be tried and tested, rather than rejected through dogma from

  111
  the Tories, who say simply that private is right, public is wrong, or the Liberal Democrats, who also seem to have a dogmatic approach?
  This country is moving from years of neglect into a new era—£180 billion, a 22 per cent. real terms increase, of investment in rail, road and all our transport to deliver a modern, safe and integrated transport system for the new millennium. I support the Government's bid to do that.
  9.8 pm
  Mr. Tom Brake: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Davies). I am pleased that he has had a new child, but in that case, he might have followed what I believe is current Government policy and taken two weeks' parental leave, rather than one.
  It is my pleasure to focus on just one aspect of the debate: the part privatisation of London Underground. The tube is the lifeblood of our capital city. Just last week, a report by Business Strategies said that
  poor transport is jeopardising strong jobs growth in central London,
  so having a smooth-running tube is not optional. It is a vital service for Londoners and visitors to London. It needs to be safe, clean, affordable and reliable. The way in which London Underground is funded is vital in ensuring that those objectives are met.
  After 18 years of underfunding that left the tube with a £1.2 billion investment backlog, privatisation is the best option that the Tories can think of. Conservative Members' ideological commitment to privatisation is very reassuring. It shows that they are incapable of change, and that they will be flying the tube privatisation banner high as they lose their seats at the next general election.
  Privatisation will not work for the underground. It would be a repeat of the railways disaster. Gerald Corbett said that railway privatisation was designed
  to maximise the proceeds to the Treasury. It was not designed to optimise safety, optimise investment or, indeed, cope with the huge increase in the number of passengers.
  —and he should know about the effect of railway privatisation.
  In view of their priorities, we can only hope that Conservative Members never get their hands on our public services again. They have already made their intentions, including at least £8 billion of cuts nationwide, very clear. That amounts to a cut of £24 million in my London borough.
  If underground privatisation follows the Tories' past record of stunning business acumen, the underground will be sold off for much less than it is worth. As we have heard today, privatisation and undervaluation of Railtrack lost taxpayers £6 billion. Additionally, privatisation does not even guarantee that the private sector will invest in the tube. Railtrack has had to be dragged kicking and screaming to deliver its investment programme.
  Labour's public-private partnership may seem better than privatisation, but in an attempt to get the best of both worlds, Labour runs the risk of getting the worst of both. There are a number of problems with the public-private partnership. The Minister quoted the Industrial Society, but he did not quote its statement, as reported on BBC
  112
  news in September, that the Government's plans to modernise London Underground represent "poor value for money" and could put passenger safety at risk.
  The Government can no longer dismiss those safety concerns—
  Mr. Hill: The hon. Gentleman should read the whole report.
  Mr. Brake: The Minister should read it again.
  Fragmentation of the railway industry led to deteriorating communications. How can the Government guarantee that a similar break-up of London Underground will not lead to an identical breakdown in communications? We have heard nothing from the Minister on that point.
  PPP does not make sense financially. Glaister, Scanalon and Travers suggests that over a 30-year period, a bond issue would work out at about £80 million cheaper per annum. That would be a very significant saving.
  PPP could also cost travellers more. Under the Government's current expenditure plans, grant funding for London Underground is to be withdrawn and the underground is to be funded by fares revenue alone, with the possible exception of major extensions to the network. I have heard rumours that the Government may cave in and accept that grant funding will remain necessary in 2001–02 and beyond. If that is correct, I hope that the Minister will confirm as much, as it would set many Londoners' minds at rest. If he cannot give us that reassurance, the public-private partnership and the withdrawal of grant, taken together, could mean that investment costs are shifted even more on to passengers.
  Additionally, public-private partnership could mean that one of the problems with our tube system—affordability—is exacerbated. If fares continue to increase at current rates—the figure of 30 per cent. has been mentioned today—the tube will be out of the reach of many of London's citizens.
  PPP is also about standing still—maintaining and upgrading the current system and dealing with the repairs backlog, but ignoring the desperate need for expansion and new lines.
  The infrastructure charges that London Underground will have to pay to the PPP companies are expected to increase almost annually as more work is done on the network. Once contracts are signed, London Underground will have to meet those charges regardless of whether revenue increases. Responsibility for meeting any shortfall will rest, ultimately, with the Mayor and the Greater London Authority. The shortfall after two years of the operation of PPP has been estimated at around £175 million—a substantial sum.
  On accountability, Labour is to bring in a system that the GLA members—London's elected representatives—do not want. They will be the ones left to pick up the pieces if it all goes wrong.
  The Minister was worried earlier that he was not going to get his fix of Liberal Democrat public interest companies; he was wondering why no one had referred to them. I can reassure him that I am about to do exactly that. We believe that public interest companies provide a true alternative to the PPP fudge. Allowing those companies to raise their own capital, freed from the public sector requirement constraints, would provide a far

  113
  cheaper means of finance than the private sector—a point the Minister did not respond to. We will be happy to put up this proposal for analysis with the public sector comparator—something that the Government have still to use on PPP. Incidentally, their plans could still unravel at this very late stage.
  Public interest companies can work to public sector objectives; this has been done in New York. As we know, New York's successful tube supremo Mr. Kiley has been drafted in to London Underground. He must be somewhat disillusioned with his scope for action, as he is stuck with PPP. It is as if that other foreign import, the England team manager, had been asked to put together his best team but could only use left-footed players.
  With public interest companies, the tube would not lose all Government-supplied revenue, which would run the risk of raising ticket prices. Additional sources of future funding, such as congestion charging, could be used later to top up the investment fund. Public interest companies do not carry the safety problems caused by fragmentation into different parts—another point that the Minister did not respond to. He has not explained how he will address the risks of a fragmented system under PPP—risks that we have already seen following rail privatisation.
  Public interest companies would provide a financing system that truly would be in the public interest—bringing in desperately needed finance, but also safeguarding the public interest, not just businesses.
  The Minister talks about the delays that would arise if a public interest company if were introduced now. The PPP was expected to be completed in April this year, yet no contract has been signed for the two deep tube lines. For the sub-surface line, the fiasco of attempting to cobble together an agreement between London Transport and Railtrack—which many felt was anti-competitive—means that a deal is not expected until April 2001 at the latest, four years after the Labour Government came to power.
  The Government have inherited one of William Hague's Conservatives' least attractive features—obstinacy. However, it is not too late for the Government to abandon PPP—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should know by now that we do not refer to Members of this House in that way.
  Mr. Brake: Thank you for pointing that out, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  It is not too late for the Government to abandon the public-private partnership. The Minister should think again, learn the lessons from railway privatisation, hear the voices of millions of Londoners and dump PPP.
  9.18 pm
  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The Liberal Democrats' motion is opportunist, and much of what the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) said was inconsistent with their own manifesto. If we compare the manifesto with what he said tonight, we will see whether this is a case of the Liberals being consistent—or, as usual, facing both ways at the same time.
  114
  In the manifesto, the Liberal Democrats said that they would
  retain London Underground in public ownership and give it the right to seek private finance for new investment without an assured government guarantee.
  We have not heard much from them today about how they propose to bring in the £7 billion that the Government will raise on the public-private partnership for London Underground. The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) criticises the lack of investment in London Underground without giving us any clues about how his party proposes to raise the money.
  The Liberal Democrats said that they would
  Treble the freight and double the number of passengers carried on Britain's railways by the year 2010.
  Again, they did not tell us how they would raise the money. They vaguely said that they would
  require Railtrack to meet targets for greater investment and increased passenger and freight traffic
  but we heard nothing from their spokesman about what that really means. It is pure words.
  The only point in their manifesto with which I can agree is when they said that they would
  strengthen the powers of the rail regulators.
  I must give the Government credit: the Strategic Rail Authority brings into one pot a number of different authorities, and that is badly needed for the railways. However, I will not let the Government entirely off the hook on safety, to which I shall return.
  The Liberal Democrats said that they would
  withhold public subsidies from Railtrack if the targets are not met.
  Goodness knows what that will do. It will surely make matters worse. If Railtrack cannot increase its own investment and there is no public subsidy, the railways will suffer.
  The motion is opportunistic and the Liberal Democrats have failed to explain their policies, but this is still an important debate, in which we must get one or two facts on the record. Much has been made of the failure of my party's privatisation of the railways. Let us look at the facts. Between May 1997 and September 1999 there was a 5 per cent. increase in passenger journeys, and we now have the largest number of passenger journeys on the railways for 40 years.
  Privatisation can hardly be called a failure if we have that record number of passengers—which has, of course, given rise to some of the problems that we now face. The rails are simply not standing up to the huge increase in traffic, and are suffering from metal fatigue. We want to encourage more freight and passengers onto the railways, but we must be extra vigilant on safety.
  Despite what the Liberal Democrats want, domestic rail freight increased by 15 per cent. in the two years to March 1999, to a record 17.4 billion tonnes moved. There are 1,300 more trains being run daily to meet increased demand since privatisation. Since 1997, 13 new stations and more than 50 new freight terminals have opened and £1.95 billion of rolling stock has been ordered. That is not a bad record.
  The Government claim the credit for increased investment in the railways, but in the next breath they

  115
  criticise us for privatising them. They cannot have it both ways. Their own spokesman, Lord Macdonald, said:
  I acknowledge readily that credit must be given to the railway industry for the advances made in safety management in recent times. Indeed, the number of signals passed at danger has been reduced significantly. I am pleased that Railtrack felt able to announce earlier this month that the number of broken rails in the half year in question, compared with the previous period, had declined by 32 per cent.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 19 October 2000; Vol. 617, c. 1201.]
  To listen to some of the scaremongering, one would think that the whole system was falling apart.
  Caroline Flint: The hon. Gentleman acknowledged that many of the achievements that he cited have happened since 1997. Does he agree that the new Labour Government brought a different ethos and attitude, and that the combination of encouragement and pressure for improved standards and better and more frequent services has come from this Government, and not from the Conservative Government, whose tactics were simply to privatise?
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: The Government have been able to build on the investment put in by Railtrack to improve the railways as I described. That simply would not have been possible under the old public sector ethos. We all remember the dirty and delayed trains under British Rail. The system was crumbling and getting worse by the year. Now at least we are getting significant sums invested in the railways, which is exactly what they need. I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for bringing that out.
  I follow the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington in echoing my concerns for the people of London, the tourists and others who use the London underground system. There is a significant problem—we all acknowledge that London Underground has been suffering from underinvestment for many years. What worries me is that the Government have planned for a huge amount of income from the public-private partnership, yet it seems that there will be a considerable delay if ever they manage to get the scheme off the ground. Their own figures prove that: last year London Underground received £338 million in public sector grants, while this year the figure is only £89 million, and next year it is planned to be £102 million. I suggest that the reason for those significant reductions is that the Government were planning for the income to come from the public-private partnership. If that money is not forthcoming, and if the public subsidy drops, the passengers of London Underground will continue to suffer considerably more pain yet before things get better—if they ever get better under this Government.
  Whatever happens, I call on the Government to get on with their public-private partnership. We would prefer a full privatisation, but whatever the outcome, there needs to be a significant increase in investment in the London underground system for all the passengers who travel on it. I have travelled on it recently—[Interruption.] I have travelled on it ever since I was a small child. I remember when I was five years old being stuck on the underground for two and a half hours with my mother. That was in the 1958 floods, as it happens—but not many people can remember that far back. That demonstrates that we need
  116
  more investment. I hope that the Minister who replies to the debate will be able to explain what will happen in the interim before the money comes in from the public-private partnership.
  The privatisation of National Air Traffic Services is also an important part of the debate. How will the Government fund the £300 million needed for the new investment at Prestwick? Everybody who is involved with air traffic control agrees that the facility at Prestwick is urgently needed. As I understand it, the Government were relying on the proceeds of the NATS privatisation for that £300 million. When are the Government confident of getting the Bill through the House, and when are they likely to receive the money from the NATS privatisation? Will that pay for the Prestwick facility, and can they give an assurance that it will be built on time?
  Ms Sandra Osborne: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the previous Government's plans for a private finance initiative delayed the Prestwick centre by several years?
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: This Government have been in power for almost four years. They have had more than sufficient time to sort out any problems regarding Prestwick. The previous Government introduced the PEI for the new facility at Swanwick, and that facility will come on stream, as the Minister said, by the end of 2001 or the beginning of 2002. I am quite certain that had the Conservative party been elected by the British people in 1997, we would have sorted out the problems and the hon. Lady would have had the facility in Prestwick by now. I do not think that there can be too much criticism there.
  What do the Government propose to do about the golden share? The Minister said quite emphatically that this was not a privatisation. However, the Government are selling off 46 per cent., with another 5 per cent. being sold to the employees. They are keeping a golden share and retaining 49 per cent. Is that compatible with European law? Will the European Commission allow the Government to keep the golden share? If not, they may have to sell off a majority stake. In that case, as my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) said, how can they prevent a French company from purchasing NATS?
  I should also like the Minister to tell us whether the Government are in favour of the European skies policy, and how it will affect the public-private partnership of NATS. That policy has not been mentioned this evening. [Interruption.] If the Minister would listen instead of laughing and talking all the time, he might learn something. That policy is of considerable concern to the military, which will not, as it does now, have reserved airspace over Europe, and which is worried about operational safety.
  The Liberal Democrats, who tabled this evening's motion, favour some sort of bond issue.
  Mr. Don Foster: Some have.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: Are the Liberal Democrats in favour of a bond or not? My understanding was that they were. PricewaterhouseCoopers, the well known firm of accountants, has estimated that assuming an AA rating—if that can be assumed—a bond issued by London transport would have to pay 1.2 per cent. more than a

  117
  Government gilt. If one has to pay over the odds to issue a bond, why not let the Government borrow the money in the first place? Even better, the money could be raised far more cheaply by privatising London Underground and relieving the pain that commuters on the underground have to suffer under this Government. At the next election, the commuters of London will give their verdict on having had to suffer that pain.
  9.31 pm
  Ms Margaret Moran: I have listened to some of the debate with increasing incredulity, partly because the Liberal Democrat motion does not distinguish privatisation from public-private partnerships. Conservative Members claim credit for the improvements in rail usage, saying that it results from privatisation. That is fantasy. The reality is that privatisation left the legacy of disinvestment and disrepair in our railways that we have all seen in the past few weeks. The Government's determination and pressure has resulted in increased rail use and greater investment by Railtrack.
  Let us get the facts straight. We inherited from the previous Government a huge investment backlog, ever increasing traffic, crumbling roads and 20 years of public transport neglect. Rail privatisation broke the network into 100 parts, and we know that it was a bad deal for taxpayers. Between 1986 and 1996, the proportion of public transport journeys fell by 11 per cent. and the number of car journeys increased by 21 per cent. Bus journeys outside London fell by 31 per cent. in the last 10 years of Conservative Government, who left us with a funding backlog of £1.2 billion for London Underground.
  Comments that Railtrack's increased investment was due to the legacy of privatisation do not bear scrutiny. By May 1997, Railtrack was £700 million behind in its rail investment and maintenance programme and—day by day, week by week—we see the effects of that legacy. The proportion of freight carried on our rail system has decreased; congestion on our road has grown by 66 per cent., and there are 70 more cars per mile of road since 1979.
  Conservative Members have elaborated a fantasy; it is a myth to suggest that privatisation has somehow enhanced the experience of the travelling public and those who use public transport and our railways. Let us consider what was the intention of the Tories. In 1994, the right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) said:
  Increases in fuel duty, and motorway tolling, will help people to make … informed choices—[Official Report, 30 March 1994; Vol. 240, c. 930.]
  We were told:
  Private enterprise given its head to build toll roads could get Britain back on the move.
  That is what Conservative Members told us then. Their agenda is purely one of privatisation, and their call for the privatisation of London Underground does them no credit.
  The Liberal Democrats argue that we should not take the public-private partnership route, but their approach contains a significant gap of £56 million in public transport investment. Where do they intend to find £8 billion for London Underground, £3.3 billion for the channel tunnel rail link and £1.3 billion for the National Air Traffic Services? Those sums would be needed for a significant improvement in our public transport system,
  118
  and they would have to come from private sector investment. That approach is similar to the usual Liberal method of funding: it involves fairy-tale politics and returns us to the 1p—the longest 1p in history—or, in this case, 2p or 3p, on income tax.
  I shall recount two examples, with which I have been directly involved, that show how PPPs can work well. The first involves the docklands light railway extension to Lewisham. Lewisham council, of which I was leader, joined with the private sector—we produced money from our resources in local government and from central Government—to extend that railway to Lewisham. That brought significant benefits, including reduced risk, on-time delivery of the network and regeneration of the local economy in Lewisham. I am proud to have been involved in that PPP. The extension brought immense benefits to a part of south-east London that has suffered severe transport difficulties, not least because of the appalling rail service that goes through south London to Lewisham.
  My second example is London Luton airport, which I am pleased to have in my constituency. I want to put the record straight—a PPP will not undermine the safety of airways. London Luton airport has never been run through NATS; nor were other airports, including Birmingham, and Sheffield. More airports are run under private arrangements than are covered by NATS. Do the Liberal Democrats truly believe that the skies over those airports are unsafe? That is nonsense.
  If we had not entered into a PPP for London Luton airport, the massive increase in passenger throughput during the past few years would not have occurred. Significant investment in a new air terminal and rail interchange has brought life to the notion of an integrated transport policy. The Government advocated and implemented that approach—a combination of commitment and investment and a determination to lever in private sector investment that would not otherwise have been available. [Interruption.] Despite the protestations of an Opposition Member from a sedentary position, Luton airport benefited significantly from a PPP. The airport has increased its passenger throughput by several million; the figure should rise to 5 million during the next few years.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Ms Moran: Time does not permit me to accept an intervention.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: I gave way to the hon. Lady.
  Ms Moran: The hon. Gentleman did not give way to me, and time does not allow me to give way to him. I hope that I will be able to let him intervene another time.
  For every million passengers who pass through the airport, 1,000 extra jobs are created in my constituency. That is good news in terms of investment and new infrastructure, and it is excellent news for the travelling public, my constituents' employment and the local economy. The evidence clearly shows that PPPs work. The airport is retained under local authority control, but with a PPP that enabled the investment to occur. The effort will continue during the next few years.

  119
  Those are just two examples of the benefits that PPP can bring to our transport system and to our local economies. I wish that Liberal Democrat Members were a little more clear-headed as to the difference between privatisation and PPPs. The way in which they intend to end PPPs does them no service whatever.
  9.40 pm
  Mr. David Rendel: I am grateful for the opportunity to make a few, brief points in relation to the closing words of our motion, on the dogmatic privatisation of public services in general.
  No one has yet mentioned the health service. In my constituency, it is of considerable concern because our lovely, new cottage hospital, which is just about to be built, will be of the type that deals only with minor operations and day surgery. We have heard from several Conservative Front-Bench spokesmen that, in future, such procedures will be carried out only in the private sector. That means that the privatisation of the new hospital in Newbury would be almost inevitable, were the Conservatives ever to come to power again.
  That is a considerable worry to my constituents. I hope that Ministers agree that if that were to happen, it would be simply awful and that, if the Conservatives continue with that policy, they deserve to lose every vote in west Berkshire.
  9.41 pm
  Mr. Michael Moore: The debate has been interesting—except for those of us who served on the Transport Bill Standing Committee, for whom it has merely been a repetition of many, old arguments. Although Liberal Democrats might have been accused of opportunism on a few occasions, such accusations come ill from members of two parties that have shifted position so quickly—albeit in a heavy-footed way—during the past few years and especially during the past few months.
  I shall focus on the privatisation of NATS. There is mounting public concern about privatisation in the transport sector. As there is raging uncertainty across the sector, the ill-conceived plans to privatise air traffic control should be scrapped. There is no public support for the proposal and little need for the Government to sell any NATS shares.
  Frequently, the Government advance their case for privatisation by highlighting investment requirements and the need both to involve private sector expertise and to separate safety regulation from practitioners. As we have often pointed out, we do not dispute those objectives but the route proposed to achieve them.
  Our proposal for an independent, publicly owned corporation or trust satisfies each of those requirements, but—crucially—retains public sector control. That means that it will retain public confidence.
  Since our previous debate on NATS privatisation, two significant developments have occurred. First, the Civil Aviation Authority produced proposals for the regulatory regime after privatisation. Secondly, the shortlist for the strategic partner has been published and has already been whittled down.
  120
  Our central concern about the privatisation of air traffic control is the nature of the market in which NATS operates. Competition—rightly—does not exist and revenue is heavily regulated; thus profit-driven corporations will be forced to cut costs to deliver their objectives. Cutting costs sits uneasily beside the paramount importance of safety. That is at the heart of public concern about the privatisation of NATS.
  It is especially alarming that the first attempt by the CAA to set out a post-privatisation regime for economic regulation of air traffic control has been condemned by NATS itself. NATS described the proposals as "totally inappropriate", not least because
  the severe cuts in operating costs and investment are inconsistent with the proper carrying out of its functions—
  especially its—
  prime duty … the safe provision of air traffic control.
  The criticism is breathtaking—in civil-service-speak, perhaps even brave. Equally breathtaking is the silence that followed. To date, there has been no ministerial comment and no resolution of the conflict at the heart of privatisation. How can any bidder seriously prepare to take on the role of strategic partner next March when the market rules after privatisation are still unknown? It is a real mess.
  We now know the final three bidders in the beauty contest to become NATS' strategic partner. The list of bidders exposes the serious problems at the heart of the NATS privatisation proposal. I shall briefly highlight the conflicts of interest that each bidder involves.
  Novares is a partnership principally between Lockheed Martin and the Airways Corporation of New Zealand. Lockheed Martin is a huge multinational corporation with many different interests but, as we know, it is the prime supplier at Swanwick and it is believed to have lost between £150 million and £300 million through the delay and ineffective control of that project. It has more recently won the contract for the new Scottish centre, and the blunt truth is that it has a great interest in controlling the paymasters of that project. The Airways Corporation of New Zealand is an overseas air traffic control outfit which has also run into controversy recently, because it has changed its two-centre strategy—which has been the core of many concerns, not least in Scotland—to a one-centre strategy with very little public support.
  Nimbus is another bidder and one of the main components of that, Aeronautical Radio Inc.—ARINC—is an equipment supplier for NATS and falls foul of the same conflicts of interest as Lockheed Martin.
  The final consortium is the Airline Group. It is interesting that it specifies that it is a not-for-profit organisation. Perhaps that reveals what it thinks of bringing the profit motive into this sector. However, it cannot escape from the basic reality that eight airlines—including British Airways, Virgin and British Midland—are in the consortium and that they generate the vast proportion of NATS' revenue. It is no wonder that they want to get their hands on it if it is to be privatised. Sitting beside the airlines as advisers are three air traffic operators from overseas. They are all on board, but it is not clear what relationship they would have with NATS after privatisation. In particular, we do not know the implications that there might be for national security. It would be helpful if the Minister could tell us what the Ministry of Defence says about that.

  121
  Our motion rightly condemns the dogmatic pursuit of privatisation in public services while the Government amendment
  welcomes the Government's policy of developing Public Private Partnerships for National Air Traffic Services and the London Underground.
  However, bereft of principles and bereft of arguments, the Government have raised pragmatism to the status of the dogma, doggedly pursuing an agenda out of touch with public opinion.
  In the privatisation of air traffic control, the bidders are riddled with conflicts of interest. NATS does not believe that the Civil Aviation Authority's proposals will work and the public have no confidence in the plans. They should be scrapped.
  9.48 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Chris Mullin): This has been an interesting debate. I am not sure that those of us who are veterans of proceedings on the Transport Bill have heard many new arguments, but we have heard one or two old arguments presented in a slightly different way.
  As I listened to the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) huffing and puffing about the wickedness of privatisation, the thought idly passed through my mind that there might have been no privatisation at all if the Liberals had not voted with the Tories to bring down the Callaghan Government in 1979. I hope that the House will forgive a little trip down memory lane, but the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) took us back as far as Beatrice and Sidney Webb, so I thought that I would chance an outing back to 1979. We all change but, at that time, the Liberals preferred a Government led by Mrs. Thatcher to a Government led by Mr. Callaghan. That had consequences that we can all vividly recall.
  I am opposed—and so are the Government—to the dogmatic pursuit of privatisation in the public services. Such a pursuit of privatisation was a characteristic of the previous Government. I exempt the hon. Member for Poole since, as he explained, he is pragmatic. Most members of the previous Government believed as a matter of principle that the public sector was bad and the private sector was good—and some of them said so in such stark terms. Tory Ministers believed at the time that privatisation was a panacea, and that has led us to all sorts of problems—not least the mess following privatisation of the railways that they have left us to clear up.
  The Government's approach has been entirely different—[Interruption.] Stay with me. We are seeking to combine the strongest features of both the public and private sectors. We want to work together for the public good.
  Mr. Don Foster: It says here.
  Mr. Mullin: Yes, it does say here; I wrote it.
  As the Under-Secretary said in his opening remarks, the public-private partnerships that we are putting together for the London Underground and National Air Traffic Services represent carefully devised, appropriate and pragmatic—yes, there is that word again—solutions to problems that have arisen from years of under-investment and poor project management in the two services.
  122
  The Government will retain a major stake in NATS, allowing it to retain a significant degree of influence over the management of the business. If the hon. Member for Bath will forgive me for saying so, he made several irresponsible points about safety. Safety, far from being undermined, will be enhanced. It will remain with the public sector—the Civil Aviation Authority—and will be entirely separate from day-to-day operational control. As for London Underground, strategic control will remain with the public sector, reporting to the Mayor. In 30 years' time, the assets, far from being permanently privatised, will revert to the public sector.
  The advantage of a public-private partnership is that it is the best way in which to lever in private sector investment and project-management expertise while preserving the safeguards that the travelling public rightly demand. Various alternative models have been proposed. The Government have examined them all and concluded that PPP is superior.
  The main alternative—I am sure that it is one that would find most favour on the Liberal Democrat Benches—is for the Chancellor to write out a cheque. I have lost count of the number of times during the past three years that the Liberal Democrats have spent their extra penny on income tax—a point made by my hon. Friends the Members for Croydon, Central (Mr. Davies) and for Luton, South (Ms Moran). We have not heard so much about it recently. Now they want to help the Chancellor spend his surplus—a surplus, incidentally, that he would not have had but for his sound management of the economy.
  As you may have noticed, Mr. Speaker, the Chancellor has not been short of advice from a variety of quarters in the past few weeks on how he might spend his surplus. Even the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo) has been at it. He wants tax cuts and more public spending. Well, life is not like that. It is folly to pretend that everyone can have more of everything.
  The plain truth is that if we are to cope with all the demands for more investment in public services, we must make some choices. Where investment can be raised from the private sector without jeopardising the public interest, it makes sense to do so—quite apart from which we need some of the private sector project-management skills that some parts of the public sector so obviously lack.
  I turn to some of the points made in the debate. My hon. Friends the Members for Shipley (Mr. Leslie) and for Luton, South rightly pointed out the little-known fact that, at more than 30 small and medium-sized airports around the country, air traffic control is in private hands, and has been so for many years. We have all been landing and taking off at those airports without even noticing the fact—whether it be at East Midlands, Bristol, Luton or Newcastle airport, where I took off this morning. If it were true that only the state can manage industries where safety is essential, we would all travel on Aeroflot rather than British Airways. [Interruption.] I know that that is an old joke, but I am sure that not everyone has heard it before.
  The hon. Member for Poole made a thoughtful speech. He comes from the civilised wing of his party and is not one of the true believers who sit on the Conservative Back Benches, not that there are many of them present tonight. He said that the Conservative party is pragmatic—he can say that again. Had he attended our previous debate,

  123
  he would have heard his hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) call for the restoration of the link between earnings and the state pension—a link that the Conservative party broke many years ago. That is pragmatism for you.
  The hon. Member for Poole asks whether March 2001 was still the date for the sale. Yes, the Government intend the sale to go ahead on that date. He asks whether we intend to reverse the Lords amendment relating to pensions. Yes, the position of existing employees is already adequately protected. He asks about overseas ownership, and the hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore) mentioned the three companies on the final shortlist. We do not accept the argument that only a British strategic partner can be the right one. The right partner will be the one that provides the best solution and future for NATS; that is the basis on which we shall assess the bids. Incidentally, we have some plans to protect the Tory party from foreign ownership: part IV, chapter II of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill will prevent foreign donations, and not before time.
  The hon. Member for Poole made a serious point about safety. He expressed concern about the interaction between the rail regulator and Railtrack and about the fact that Railtrack could be fined for not meeting punctuality targets and for delays to trains. We recognise the seriousness of that issue, so we have asked Sir Alastair Morton to consider with the industry the contractual and regulatory regime. The framework was created at the time of privatisation, but we shall have to consider what revision is needed.
  The hon. Gentleman asked what effect a delay to the PPP of the sort proposed by the Lords would have. We intend to reverse that Lords amendment. Were it to stand, it would jeopardise the PPP.
  Ms Osborne: Will my hon. Friend confirm the implications for the new Scottish centre of the Lords amendment standing and the NATS' PPP being delayed until after the general election?
  Mr. Mullin: As I say, the programme for the new Scottish centre, which, after initial difficulties, is now going quite well, would be jeopardised.
  The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) quoted the Industrial Society report and suggested that it said that passengers would be put at risk. In fact, the report stated that the society did not subscribe to the view that the PPP was inherently unsafe, and it welcomed the Government's efforts to ensure that safety was kept in public sector control.
  The hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) asked whether the Government were confident of being able to retain a golden share. Yes.
  In conclusion, the Government have no desire to repeat the mistakes of Conservative privatisations, in which public assets were simply looted. Our aim is to channel badly needed private sector funding and management skills into our transport infrastructure for the benefit of all. Ours are not the "flog it and forget it" exercises that
  124
  the Conservatives continue to advocate. We are retaining a significant Government presence precisely for the purpose of protecting the public interest.
  The London Underground PPP enables us finally to reverse the historic decline of the tube. It offers billions of pounds of investment—
  Mr. Tyler rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
  Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
  Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 43, Noes 272.

  Division No. 319]

  [10 pm

  AYES

  Allan, Richard

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

  Baker, Norman

  Ballard, Jackie

  Livsey, Richard

  Berth, Rt Hon A J

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

  Brake, Tom

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Moore, Michael

  Breed, Colin

  Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

  Burstow, Paul

  Oaten, Mark

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Öpik, Lembit

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Rendel, David

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Chidgey, David

  Sanders, Adrian

  Cotter, Brian

  Stunell, Andrew

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Gidley, Sandra

  Tyler, Paul

  Hancock, Mike

  Webb, Steve

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

  Harvey, Nick

  Willis, Phil

  Hughes, Simon (Southward N)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Mr. David Heath and

  Keetch, Paul

  Sir Robert Smith.

  NOES

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Ainger, Nick

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Alexander, Douglas

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Allen, Graham

  Browne, Desmond

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Burden, Richard

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Burgon, Colin

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Ashton, Joe

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Austin, John

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Banks, Tony

  Caplin, Ivor

  Barnes, Harry

  Casale, Roger

  Barron, Kevin

  Caton, Martin

  Battle, John

  Cawsey, Ian

  Beard, Nigel

  Chaytor, David

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Benton, Joe

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbhdge)

  Berry, Roger

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Best, Harold

  Clwyd, Ann

  Blackman, Liz

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Blizzard, Bob

  Coleman, Iain

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Connarty, Michael

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  125

  Cooper, Yvette

  Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

  Corbett, Robin

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Corston, Jean

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Cousins, Jim

  Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

  Cranston, Ross

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Cummings, John

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Kemp, Fraser

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Khabra, Piara S

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Kidney, David

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Davidson, Ian

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

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

  Lammy, David

  Laxton, Bob

  Denham, John

  Lepper, David

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Leslie, Christopher

  Doran, Frank

  Levitt, Tom

  Drew, David

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Linton, Martin

  Edwards, Huw

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Efford, Clive

  Love, Andrew

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Ennis, Jeff

  McCabe, Steve

  Etherington, Bill

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Fisher, Mark

  Macdonald, Calum

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Flint, Caroline

  McIsaac, Shona

  Flynn, Paul

  MacShane, Denis

  Follett, Barbara

  McWalter, Tony

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  McWilliam, John

  Foulkes, George

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Fyfe, Maria

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Gapes, Mike

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  Martlew, Eric

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Maxton, John

  Godsiff, Roger

  Meale, Alan

  Goggins, Paul

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Mitchell, Austin

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Grocott, Bruce

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Grogan, John

  Morley, Elliot

  Hain, Peter

  Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Mountford, Kali

  Hanson, David

  Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

  Healey, John

  Mullin, Chris

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Heppell, John

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Norris, Dan

  Hill, Keith

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Hope, Phil

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Olner, Bill

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Pearson, Ian

  Hurst, Alan

  Pendry, Tom

  Hutton, John

  Pickthall, Colin

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Pike, Peter L

  Illsley, Eric

  Plaskitt, James

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Jamieson, David

  Pope, Greg

  Jenkins, Brian

  Pound, Stephen

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  126

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Radice, Rt Hon Giles

  Rammell, Bill

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Rapson, Syd

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Timms, Stephen

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Tipping, Paddy

  Rogers, Allan

  Touhig, Don

  Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

  Trickett, Jon

  Rooney, Terry

  Truswell, Paul

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Ruane, Chris

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Tynan, Bill

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Sawford, Phil

  White, Brian

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Sheerman, Barry

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Winnick, David

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Soley, Clive

  Wood, Mike

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Woodward, Shaun

  Spellar, John

  Worthington, Tony

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Stevenson, George

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Mr. Clive Betts and

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Mr. Jim Dowd.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments):—
  The House divided: Ayes 260, Noes 68.

  Division No. 320]

  [10.11 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Ainger, Nick

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Browne, Desmond

  Alexander, Douglas

  Burden, Richard

  Allen, Graham

  Burgon, Colin

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Ashton, Joe

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Caplin, Ivor

  Banks, Tony

  Casale, Roger

  Barnes, Harry

  Caton, Martin

  Barron, Kevin

  Cawsey, Ian

  Battle, John

  Chaytor, David

  Beard, Nigel

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Benton, Joe

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Berry, Roger

  Clwyd, Ann

  Best, Harold

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Blackman, Liz

  Coleman, Iain

  Blizzard, Bob

  Connarty, Michael

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Cooper, Yvette

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Corbett, Robin

  127

  Corston, Jean

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Cousins, Jim

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Cranston, Ross

  Kemp, Fraser

  Cummings, John

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Khabra, Piara S

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Kidney, David

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Davidson, Ian

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

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

  Lammy, David

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Denham, John

  Laxton, Bob

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Leslie, Christopher

  Doran, Frank

  Levitt, Tom

  Drew, David

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Linton, Martin

  Eagle, Maria (L 'pool Garston)

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Edwards, Huw

  Love, Andrew

  Effort, Clive

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  McCabe, Steve

  Ennis, Jeff

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Etherington, Bill

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Macdonald, Calum

  Fisher, Mark

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  McIsaac, Shona

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  MacShane, Denis

  Flint, Caroline

  McWalter, Tony

  Flynn, Paul

  McWilliam, John

  Follett, Barbara

  Mallaber, Judy

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Foulkes, George

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Fyfe, Maria

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Gapes, Mike

  Martlew, Eric

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  Maxton, John

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Meale, Alan

  Godsiff, Roger

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Goggins, Paul

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Mitchell, Austin

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Moffatt, Laura

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Morley, Elliot

  Grogan, John

  Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)

  Hain, Peter

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Mountford, Kali

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Mullin, Chris

  Hanson, David

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Healey, John

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Norris, Dan

  Heppell, John

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Hill, Keith

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Hinchliffe, David

  Olner, Bill

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Hope, Phil

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Pearson, Ian

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Pendry, Tom

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Pike, Peter L

  Hurst, Alan

  Plaskitt, James

  Hutton, John

  Pollard, Kerry

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Pope, Greg

  Illsley, Eric

  Pound, Stephen

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Jamieson, David

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Jenkins, Brian

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

  Rammell, Bill

  Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

  Rapson, Syd

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

  Rogers, Allan

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

  128

  Rooney, Terry

  Timms, Stephen

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Rowlands, Ted

  Touhig, Don

  Ruane, Chris

  Trickett, Jon

  Ruddock, Joan

  Truswell, Paul

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Sawford, Phil

  Tynan, Bill

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  White, Brian

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Soley, Clive

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Spellar, John

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Winnick, David

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Stevenson, George

  Wood, Mike

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Woodward, Shaun

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Worthington, Tony

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Mr. Clive Betts and

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Mr. Jim Dowd.

  NOES

  Allan, Richard

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Amess, David

  Lansley, Andrew

  Baker, Norman

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Ballard, Jackie

  Livsey, Richard

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Brake, Tom

  Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

  Brand, Dr Peter

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Breed, Colin

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Burstow, Paul

  Moore, Michael

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Oaten, Mark

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Chidgey, David

  Öpik, Lembit

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Randall, John

  Collins, Tim

  Rendel, David

  Cotter, Brian

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Cran, James

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Sanders, Adrian

  Day, Stephen

  Stunell, Andrew

  Fabricant, Michael

  Syms, Robert

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Garnier, Edward

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Gidley, Sandra

  Tyler, Paul

  Green, Damian

  Webb, Steve

  Hancock, Mike

  Wells, Bowen

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Whittingdale, John

  Harvey, Nick

  Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Willis, Phil

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Keetch, Paul

  Tellers for the Noes:

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

  Sir Robert Smith and

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Mr. David Heath.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  MR. SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House deplores the previous Government's incompetent privatisation of the railways which left the network fragmented, cost taxpayers billions of pounds and brought rail travellers hours of delays; welcomes the Government's creation of the Strategic Rail Authority to give direction to the industry from an industry-wide perspective rather than from the narrow interests of individual companies; recognises that the Government's 10-year plan is delivering the largest investment programme for the railways for generations to tackle the problems caused by years of under-investment in the public and private sectors; welcomes the Government's pragmatic policy of developing Public Private Partnerships for National Air Traffic Services and the London Underground, enabling much needed investment and private sector financial and management skills to be introduced to the public services while safeguarding safety and the public interest; and regrets the official Opposition's dogmatic pursuit of privatisation for the London Underground and the National Air Traffic Services.

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees),

  SOCIAL POLICY AGENDA
  That the House takes note of European Union Document No. 9964/00, a European Commission Communication on a European Social Policy Agenda for the next five years; and supports the Government's welcome for the Commission's analysis of the challenges facing employment and social policy in the next five years and for the emphasis placed on increasing employability. on combating social exclusion, on promoting entrepreneurship, whilst opposing proposals that impose unnecessary burdensome new legislation particularly upon business, and remaining convinced of the need for proposals to codify. adapt or improve existing legislation or for new legislation to be made clear and workable; and notes the Government's intention to negotiate to this end, and to ensure that the proposals take proper account of the legitimate concerns of employers and the need to raise employment rates across the Community.—[Mr. Touhig.]
  Question agreed to.

PETITION

  Pensions and Pensioners
  10.23 pm
  Mr. Matthew Taylor: Many of my constituents have asked me to present a petition on the same theme as the debate that my party called earlier this evening. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Will hon. Members leave the Chamber quietly? An hon. Member is presenting a petition.
  Mr. Taylor: My constituents declare that
  last year's increase of 75p in the basic state pension is derisory and is keeping pensioners in poverty.
  The issue is particularly important in my part of the world, where so many elderly people live and have lived on low incomes throughout their lives.
  The petition continues:
  The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for Social Security—
  as we did in tonight's debate—
  to reconsider and give all pensioners an increase in their basic state pension that reflects a real share of the nation's wealth.
  Liberal Democrats have campaigned with the petitioners for increases on top of inflation, ranging from £5 a week for single pensioners to £15 for single pensioners over 80, and nearly £30 for pensioner couples. I hope that on Wednesday the Chancellor will finally listen to the huge campaign that has been run for such increases, first by pensioners alone and then with the support of Liberal Democrats around the country.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Horticulture Research International
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Touhig.]
  10.24 pm
  Mr. John Grogan: Stockbridge house near the village of Cawood is a horticultural research facility in my constituency. Like everything else in Selby at the moment, it is very wet indeed, and it would be remiss of me not to begin this debate by noting that, last week, the whole site and, indeed, the whole village of Cawood were under imminent threat from flooding. The products of years of research at Stockbridge house were threatened but, fortunately, owing to the heroic efforts of many villagers, led by parish council chairman David Jones, the flood waters were kept at bay. However, many of my constituents further downstream were not so lucky.
  For years, I have been accustomed on Thursday morning to seek out as my first read of the day a copy of the Selby Times. Since Horticulture Research International's shock announcement in September that it was closing Stockbridge house from the end of March 2001, my reading habits have changed. At Thursday breakfast time, I now turn first to a paper called the Grower. As chronicled in the Grower, the normally classy world of horticulture has been in turmoil in recent weeks.
  I want to do three things in this debate. First, I want to outline the importance of the horticultural sector and the current programme of research. Secondly, I want to discuss and examine the restructuring plan of Horticulture Research International and, finally, I want to suggest a way forward that will preserve the integrity of the restructuring plan—which, after all, Ministers have approved—while giving a new future to Stockbridge house.
  Horticultural output has risen steadily over the past few years. The farmgate value of horticultural produce is £2.5 billion and makes up more than 15 per cent. of the UK's total agricultural output. A recent study by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food indicated that, of 11 autonomous sectors studied, horticulture is the most important for value added. The UK horticulture industry is characterised by many small and medium-sized businesses, which is why our research capacity is important. Many horticultural businesses find it hard to get the information that they need to develop their products, protect them from disease and find new markets.
  Our debate will focus on the role of Horticulture Research International, a non-departmental public body, and it is worth noting that it is one of only 28 contractors for MAFF's programmes. In 2000–01, 80 per cent. of planned spending on horticultural research and development is expected to go to HRI. HRI's health is crucial to the industry, but it is essential that it has strong competitors to keep it honest. As the recent report of the Select Committee on Agriculture vividly described, HRI is, to put it bluntly, in a bit of a financial mess. Since 1990, MAFF has pledged £125 million of research and development contracts to HRI and invested £60 million in restructuring plans.
  The Select Committee discussed the recent failure of the HortiTech business unit that was launched with a fanfare by the current HRI chairman, Mr. Peter Siddall, in 1998. The unit was designed to generate commercial
  132
  income by transferring technology to industry and creating a commercial philosophy throughout HRI. HortiTech income is about £2.7 million, compared with a target of £4.35 million. The relative failure of HortiTech is the root of HRI's financial problems. The restructuring plan announced in September by Mr. Siddall involved a loss of about 150 posts—including about 50 at Stockbridge—which is more than 20 per cent. of HRI's total work force. Jobs will be lost as a result of the failure of the board and its chairman to balance the books.
  Stockbridge house, to the astonishment of the industry, was chosen for closure. Of all the development sites run by HRI, Stockbridge house seemed to be in the strongest financial position, as Colin Harvey, chairman of the Horticultural Development Council, observed. Fifty per cent. of HRI's £22 million annual income comes directly from MAFF. However, MAFF funds only 10 per cent. of Stockbridge house's costs, with 47 per cent. coming from the Horticultural Development Council—in effect, the growers who pay the council a levy—and the remaining 43 per cent. from commercial organisations.
  HRI's website boasts that "over the years" Stockbridge house
  has built up a worldwide reputation as a practical centre for horticultural research and development.
  The SOLA—specific off-label approval—programme of pesticides research is particularly important to smaller growers. That is based at Stockbridge house. It provides them with the crop protection products that they need to remain competitive. Indeed, the programme is funded largely by the HDC. Mr. Siddall's plan depends on closing Stockbridge house, but transferring the contracts to other sites. There are practical difficulties in doing that.
  Other criticisms of HRI's plans are as follows: first, there was a complete of lack of consultation with the industry. The management tactics employed might have been learned by studying a National Coal Board management manual from the 1980s. As the Tomato Growers Association put it in its press release:
  The Tomato Growers Association views with dismay the announcement by HRI of the intended reduction of more than 20 per cent. in its staff numbers and, in particular, the closure of its Stockbridge House site. Had HRI consulted the industry over its plans, it would know that Stockbridge has recently enjoyed the closest working relationship of any HRI site with glasshouse salad crop growers, and not just those in the north of the country.
  The TGA has no confidence that HRI can maintain or replace the expertise which is threatened by the closure … As an example, research on the control of spider mites, which is led by Stockbridge staff, is seen as pivotal to the achievement by growers of their objective of eliminating all pesticide use in UK tomato crops.
  There is a strong feeling that HRI is turning its back on its original objectives. When it was set up in 1990, its brief was to
  carry out horticultural research and development and to transfer the results to the UK horticultural industry—
  very much an applied practical brief, the sort of work that Stockbridge house excels in and that growers throughout the country, particularly in the north, find so useful.
  I quote The Commercial Greenhouse Grower editorial of last month:
  The industry has made its voice very clear on the Stockbridge House closure.
  It feels badly let down that it was not consulted, but if you read the evidence submitted by HRI's chairman Peter Siddall … to the House of Commons Agriculture Select Committee you get the answer.

  133
  In his evidence Mr. Siddall aptly made clear that re-shaping HRI meant "more science and less development." And just in case we are accused of taking phrases out of context he also said "It is about focus, focus on science and the higher value end of the spectrum."
  On consultation, it was shameful that, when Mr. Siddall announced his plan, no one had bothered to check with MAFF about the future of the tied cottages at Stockbridge house. Families who had given their working lives to the site were left for weeks wondering whether they would lose not just their jobs, but their homes. Thankfully, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has intervened to secure those homes.
  There is an element of civil service politics about all this, which reveals the limitations of the model of a non-departmental public body. When I was invited to an extremely useful meeting with the Minister to discuss the matter, sitting on his left was one Mr. Tony Burne, his chief adviser on research. Wearing his other hat, Mr. Burne is on the HRI board. In effect, he was advising the Minister on a restructuring plan costing the taxpayer more than £4 million. As a member of the HRI board, Mr. Burne had already approved that plan and committed himself to it.
  I draw three conclusions from that evidence. First, as regards the status of HRI, there is wide consensus on the immediate way forward. As long ago as 1993, the HRI management statement referred to intended primary legislation which will establish HRI as a statutory corporation with functions and powers to carry out its remit and define its relationship clearly with MAFF. Who knows? Given my new found knowledge on the subject, I might be persuaded, if I am successful in the forthcoming ballot, to introduce a private Member's Bill on the subject.
  That brings me to my second conclusion. I will want first to see a new chairman of HRI. Mr. Siddall should emulate Kevin Keegan and not seek reappointment to the role when his three-year term is up in January 2001. No one in the industry has been impressed by the aggressive attitude that Mr. Siddall has adopted, most notably at a recent meeting with the National Farmers Union and the HDC, which he needs to win over. Apparently, he banned the chief executive from attending a previous meeting with the HDC.
  Mr. Siddall is a management consultant by trade. His website, Siddall & Company, reveals the following philosophy:
  With our clients we act as catalyst, coach and safety valve so that groups can work together more effectively.
  Our clients regard us as trusted thought partners.
  Enough said—HRI is too important to be an experiment for a management consultant.
  The final conclusion is on the future of Stockbridge house and HRI. Earlier, I mentioned the fact that, for HRI's restructuring plan to work, HRI has to keep on-side the seven key research scientists at Stockbridge house and the HDC. None of the key research scientists are prepared to move, because of family reasons. The HDC has expressed concerns about HRI's ability to fulfil the SOLA contract at another site.
  Last week, a very constructive meeting was held between representatives of HRI, the National Farmers Union and the HDC. There now seems to be a real and shared commitment to ensuring a viable and effective approach for HRI. Chief executive Professor Michael
  134
  Wilson is now adopting a more pragmatic approach, making it clear that he does not rule out in the future employing the services of some of the seven key research scientists at Stockbridge house, perhaps on a contractual basis. The HDC is particularly keen that some of their skills should be employed in fulfilling the extremely important SOLA research programme.
  Last week, I spoke to Professor Wilson on the telephone. He told me that he would not stand in the way of another body—perhaps the Central Science Laboratory, in York, which is another arm of MAFF and in need of glasshouses—taking over the site, and that it was up to that body to draw up a business plan. Indeed, if Professor Wilson is to contract work for the SOLA programme to some of the current research scientists, they will need continuing facilities at Stockbridge house. It is possible that some or all of the staff based at Stockbridge house could be transferred to CSL, saving some of the redundancy costs. There are also moves among local growers to establish a Stockbridge house trust to fund work on the site. I formally ask Ministers for a meeting within the next month to discuss those ideas.
  Last week, I also asked Professor Wilson what he thought of accusations that HRI would implement a scorched earth policy at Stockbridge house so that no one else could take on a viable site. He assured me that the glasshouses would remain untouched, but made no commitment on the tractors and other equipment.
  It is also a little unclear to what extent HRI is willing to provide financial and personnel information on Stockbridge house to enable CSL, or anyone else, to prepare a business plan for the site. Perhaps Ministers will consider dispatching the ubiquitous aforementioned Mr. Tony Burne, chief research adviser to MAFF and HRI board member, to encourage all the parties involved to give a fair chance for alternative plans for Stockbridge house to be prepared and to be carefully considered by Ministers, as my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food promised to do in his most recent press release on the subject.
  10.38 pm
  The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Ms Joyce Quin): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) on securing this debate. I certainly understand why he has chosen to raise this particular issue; it is not only important, but of enormous concern to Horticulture Research International staff, to its many customers and to my hon. Friend's constituents. I very much appreciate that in securing this debate, my hon. Friend has been motivated both by concern for the jobs of some of his constituents and by the concern to secure a viable horticulture industry, and horticultural research industry, in the United Kingdom. Like officials and other Ministers in my Department, I hold very dear those concerns about the horticulture industry and the horticultural research industry.
  My hon. Friend began by referring to the danger of flooding at the site in his constituency. I join him in paying tribute to the efforts of those who have worked so hard in trying to ward off the problems caused by flooding in his part of the world.
  The Government very much regret that HRI is having to take the action that it has announced, including the closure of its Stockbridge house site and the redundancies

  135
  across the organisation. Indeed, it is important to stress that all HRI's sites are affected by the restructuring programme, not just Stockbridge house—although I fully accept the severity of the impact on Stockbridge house, as outlined by my hon. Friend.
  I know that HRI's board and senior management are committed to providing every possible assistance for staff who are being made redundant. That includes career consultancy, resettlement training and access to independent counselling. MAFF has made available its own personnel and welfare services. That in turn includes doing our best to identify suitable vacancies at the offices of MAFF or our agencies. When my hon. Friend met my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, they discussed some of these concerns.
  The Government believe that however difficult HRI's restructuring measures may be, they are necessary to redress a very difficult financial situation and to ensure that HRI can continue to provide an efficient and cost-effective service into the future.
  My hon. Friend mentioned some of HRI's financial problems, and it is true that it is forecasting an annual deficit for the four years ending March 2004 of about £2 million, falling to £1.3 million. Some £3 million must be cut from operating costs, and assets must be brought into line with foreseeable income streams. That is why the board and management had to review the financial strategy, and to take difficult decisions as a result. The horticulture industry and the farmers' unions share the view that to maintain HRI and provide for its crucial work for the sector, the restructuring is necessary.
  The Government believe that HRI's board and senior management have assessed all the options and identified the one which, in their view, can best secure the organisation's future and maintain its service to the UK horticulture industry. HRI is a non-departmental public body, and decisions about the day-to-day operation of its business are, of course, matters for its board and senior management. It has an experienced board, which includes senior representatives of the horticulture industry, the scientific community and business.
  I can assure my hon. Friend and the House that, as HRI's sponsor Department, the Ministry has scrutinised the plans very thoroughly. We have agreed to provide a grant of £4.5 million to enable the restructuring to be implemented. My right hon. Friend the Minister met my hon. Friend with a delegation from the industry on 21 September, to listen to their concerns directly and to discuss the restructuring plans, including the closure of the Stockbridge house site.
  One of the points arising was the industry-funded work at Stockbridge house and its future. Not surprisingly, my hon. Friend referred to the arrangements that HRI has in hand to ensure that it can continue to deliver the important project work currently based at Stockbridge house, and its chief executive has given the Minister an undertaking that those arrangements will be fully discussed and explained to the industry.
  To that end, HRI has had lengthy and detailed discussions with senior representatives of the industry to explain the rationale behind the restructuring plans and the arrangements for managing work currently carried out at Stockbridge house. I am pleased to be able to report
  136
  that on 2 November HR1, the National Farmers Union, the Horticultural Development Council and the East Malling Trust for Horticultural Research issued a joint statement, in which they all committed themselves to moving ahead together for the benefit of the UK's horticulture industry. In particular, they have agreed to seek a satisfactory continuation at HRI of the important SOLA—specified off-label pesticides approval—work currently carried out at Stockbridge house.
  The statement affirmed all those bodies' belief in a healthy and vigorous HRI, and in the need for all the stakeholders to work together to ensure that its valuable programme of work continues in such a way as to benefit the horticulture industry directly.
  It is worth reflecting on the fact that the horticulture industry is a major contributor to the economy and to the nation's diet and health. My hon. Friend and I must have read similar briefing information before this debate, as I, too, want to refer to the fact that the farmgate value of produce exceeds £2.5 billion, which, as he said, is more than 15 per cent. of total UK agricultural output. That is a significant contribution. Horticulture receives very little support from the common agricultural policy, and has one of the freest markets in operation in agriculture.
  Consumer preference has been a strong driver and the sector has shown itself to be tough, competitive and resilient. I want to stress the importance that Ministers attach to the future of the horticultural sector. As a Minister with a particular interest in the sector, I have had discussions with various people in the industry, as well as seeing for myself many of our excellent horticulture establishments. I am convinced that the sector can expand and can take the place of some of the produce that is currently imported, ensuring that in future we provide more of our produce domestically.
  Current levels of public funding represent a firm commitment to HRI and to its work in support of the UK horticulture industry. MAFF continues to account for about 50 per cent. of its income. Since 1997, the Government have invested about £58 million in the organisation. HRI has also been awarded £2.26 million from the capital modernisation fund to create a new European centre for organic top fruit and nursery stock at its East Malling site.
  I spoke of some of our imported produce being replaced by domestically grown produce, and that is especially relevant to organic production. There is considerable room for more such production here. The commitment to the new European centre was part of the action plan for farming launched by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at the farming summit on 30 March. In addition, HRI has been awarded £151,000 from the invest-to-save budget for collaborative projects with other public sector research establishments, and has recently been granted more than £11 million for capital investment and other purposes, including £4.5 million to enable the present restructuring plans to be implemented.
  My hon. Friend, quite understandably, concentrated on plans for the future of the Stockbridge house site. May I respond directly to his request for a meeting with Ministers and officials about the developing situation regarding the future of the site and of HRI's work? I am happy to give him the assurance that we will have a meeting with him to deal with the issues about which he is concerned. He knows, however, that our intention is

  137
  that once HRI vacates the site we shall sell it, so that the receipts will partly offset the cost of financing the restructuring plans, including redundancy payments to staff who are not transferring to other sites.
  I know that there has been speculation about a possible role for MAFF's central science laboratory at York. As my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food announced on 6 October, CSL is considering the business case for consolidating some of its own research work at Stockbridge house when HRI leaves.
  My hon. Friend referred to a scorched earth approach to the Stockbridge house site. I assure him that that is not the case. The discussions will include consideration of some of the facilities that already exist on that site, about which I know he is concerned.
  My hon. Friend also referred to HRI's science activities. I do not believe, as some allege, that HRI is expanding its "high science" activities at the expense of its development role. Indeed, HRI' s chief executive has given Ministers an assurance that it will continue to cover the full spectrum of research and development from basic research to the dissemination of research and development findings and good practice direct to the industry. I know that he is keen to strengthen further HRI's links with the horticulture industry, something to which I also attach considerable importance. The chief executive is also seeking additional funding schemes through public-private partnerships so as to stabilise HRI's financial position and ensure that it continues to benefit all its stakeholders.
  My hon. Friend also spoke about the role of Tony Burne, who is on the board of Horticulture Research International. He is one of 10 members of the board, and
  138
  although he also has a role advising Ministers and considering issues affecting research in this sector through his work at MAFF, he does not derive financial advantage from that role. It is important to say that. There has been a representative from MAFF on the board of HRI from the outset. In that sense, Mr. Burne is fulfilling a normal responsibility, which has existed from the beginning.
  The Government believe that HRI has a good reputation for providing high quality research and development and services to its customers. As such, it is rightly—and should continue to be—the premier horticultural research establishment in the United Kingdom. Obviously, we intend the restructuring plans to reinforce that position and maintain the ability to service the United Kingdom's horticulture industry. The Government hope that all HRI's customers will rally round the organisation and give it their support. We believe that we have to look ahead, through this difficult restructuring, to the industry's ultimate benefit.
  It is important to see this research work in terms of the wider research work that can benefit horticulture and agriculture. I also believe that it is important to consider such issues in a national and a regional context to see the role that horticulture can play in the development of regional economies as well as in the economy of our country as a whole.
  I accept my hon. Friend's point when he stressed the importance—
  The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at six minutes to Eleven o'clock.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Departmental Policies
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Solicitor-General if he will set out, including statistical information relating as directly as possible to the constituency, the effect on the Manchester, Gorton constituency, of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [136167]

  The Solicitor-General
  In October 1999, in line with national policy, the City of Manchester Branch of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), in liaison with the police and Manchester City Magistrates Court, introduced the Narey proposals. All defendants charged with a criminal offence now make their first appearance before Manchester City Magistrates Court within 72 hours. Present figures would suggest that between 40 per cent. and 45 per cent. of all defendants now have their cases finalised far more quickly than previously was the case. On 13 November 2000, the City of Manchester Branch will be altering its structures in line with the proposals in the Glidewell review. This will enable the CPS to place greater emphasis on more serious crime in Manchester Crown Court. The CPS, together with other agencies, has also helped to draw up procedures and protocols to speed up youth justice, particularly persistent young offenders.

  Since May 1997, the Crown Prosecution Service has successfully prosecuted a number of major cases arising in the Gorton area. In November 1997, James Patterson Smith was sentenced to life imprisonment for the brutal murder of Kelly Ann Bates in Furnival Road, Gorton the previous year. This year the CPS has successfully completed prosecutions arising out of Operation Sydney, involving the supply of hard drugs in the Bennett Street area of West Gorton, and Operation Peking, where four men received substantial custodial sentences for violence and intimidation in Gorton.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  British Council
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what contracts her Department is currently funding through the British Council. [136644]

  Clare Short
  DFID currently has 100 contracts with the British Council, 65 of which are consultancy type contracts. The remaining 44 are for the provision of training services and have been called down under a general Enabling Agreement for management of DFID's Technical Co-operation Training Programme.

  Indonesia
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the officials she met on her recent visit to Indonesia. [136625]

  Clare Short
  During my visit to Indonesia from 9–12 October, I held formal discussions with the following people:

  President Abdurrachman Wahid

  Lieut. Gen. (Ret.) Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, Co-ordinating Minister for Political, Social and Security Affairs

  Mrs. Erna Witoelar, Minister of Settlements and Regional Infrastructure

  Prof. Bungaran Saragih, Minister for Agriculture and Forestry

  Dr. Nur Mahmud Isma'il, Junior Ministry for Forestry

  Mr. Sarwono Kusumaatmadja, Minister of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries

  Mr. Aspar Aswin, Governor of West Kalimantan

  Mr. Gusti Samsumin, Chairman, Regional Assembly, West Kalimantan

  Mr. Mark Baird, Country Director for the World Bank

  Mr. John Dodsworth, Resident Representative the International Monetary Fund

  Mr. Jan van Heeswijk, Resident Representative of the Asian Development Bank

  In addition, I held informal discussions with a number of other Government representatives, Parliamentarians, donor representatives and representatives of civil society and other non-governmental institutions.

  Globalisation White Paper
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development when her White Paper on globalisation will be published. [136624]

  Clare Short
  We are aiming to publish the White Paper before the Christmas recess.

  Communicable Diseases
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the recent EC communication on "Accelerated action targeted at major communicable diseases within the context of poverty reduction"; and what plans she has to support it. [136766]

  Clare Short
  The UK Government were closely involved in the drafting of the EC policy framework for tackling poverty and major communicable diseases which strongly reflects our own developmental priorities. The communiqué represents an international consensus and is part of the wider process of building on the commitment to achieving the international health targets. A crucial next step is the forthcoming December G8 meeting in Japan, which provides an opportunity to ensure that the international architecture required to take forward the effective global partnership to tackle infectious diseases is in place.

  Sub-Saharan Africa
  Mr. Browne
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what progress has been made in implementing the commitment increase by 50 per cent. spending on basic education, health care and clean water in sub-Saharan Africa. [137185]
  3W
  Clare Short
  At the G7/8 Denver Summit in June 1997 my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister committed the Government to increase by 50 per cent. spending on basic education, health care and clean water in sub-Saharan Africa over the next three years.

  To fulfil this promise my Department's target was to commit at least £360 million over the three years to 1997 to 2000 compared with £240 million in the previous three years.

  We achieved this at the end of October last year. In total, we have committed £452 million; some 25 per cent. over the target.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Bishops' Palaces
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, if he will make a statement on the future of the remaining bishops' palaces. [135369]

  Mr. Stuart Bell
  The hon. Gentleman may have in mind a report in 'The Sunday Telegraph' on 15 October, speculating on the possible recommendations of the Archbishops' Review of Bishops' Needs and Resources, chaired by Professor Anthony Mellows. That Review's report is expected early next year. We do not yet know what its recommendations will be. But we will of course pay careful heed to what it says.

  Clergy (Stipends and Pensions)
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, if he will report on the contribution made by the Church Commissioners to clergy stipends and pensions. [135373]

  Mr. Stuart Bell
  In 1999 the Commissioners contributed £156.1 million in support of the Church's ministry, representing some 20 per cent. of the Church's overall running costs of approximately £760 million.

  That sum includes the Commissioners' expenditure of £87 million on clergy pensions and transitional relief of £17 million to help dioceses with the cost of the new funded pension scheme. It also includes £20 million paid towards the stipends of parish clergy, much of which is targeted specifically towards those dioceses most in need of financial help, and stipends paid to other clergy of nearly £7 million.

  Bibles (Ethnic Minority Languages)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, what changes have taken place in the past 10 years in the Church's spending on Bibles in ethnic minority languages. [135374]

  Mr. Stuart Bell
  The Church Commissioners' expenditure is committed to the support of clergy stipends, pensions and other legal commitments. Those commitments do not stretch to the publication of bibles.

  Redundant Churches
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, if he will make a statement on the rights of congregations to purchase churches made redundant by Church authorities. [135372]

  Mr. Stuart Bell
  I refer the hon. Member to the written answer I gave him on 10 July 2000,Official Report, column 369W, in which I explained that the procedure for settling the future of redundant Church of England churches gives priority to dioceses seeking and achieving suitable alternative uses. Dioceses are also encouraged to keep informed the local parochial church council who are also given the opportunity to make representations for or against the proposed use.

  Clergy (Conditions of Service)
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, if he will make a statement on the conditions of service of the clergy. [135370]

  Mr. Stuart Bell
  Conditions of service will vary slightly from diocese to diocese but should include a stipend (based on a National Stipend Benchmark of £16,420), free accommodation (or a housing allowance), membership of a non-contributory pension scheme, and the full reimbursement of all working expenses.

  Investment
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, what account the Church Commissioners take of scripture in their investment decisions. [135371]

  Mr. Stuart Bell
  The Commissioners' ethical investment policy is exercised in the context of their duty to manage their inherited assets to provide financial support for the Church of England's ministry, especially in areas of need and opportunity.

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMISSION

  Privatisation (NAO Review)
  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission what discussions he has had with the Comptroller and Auditor General on the resources available to the NAO to review the effectiveness and economy of the privatisation of public assets. [135368]

  Mr. Sheldon
  Over the past 10 years the National Audit Office has published more than 50 reports on privatisations and a variety of public/private partnerships. The Public Accounts Commission last met on 18 July to consider and approve the National Audit Office's Corporate Plan for 2001–2002 and beyond. The resources to be made available to the National Audit Office will include provision to enable it to continue its work on this important area.

DEFENCE

  Territorial Army
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the size of the Territorial Army. [134414]

  Mr. Spellar
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 30 October 2000,Official Report, column 271W.

  Trafalgar Class Submarine
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the state of seaworthiness is of each Trafalgar class submarine. [134918]

  Mr. Spellar
  HMS Torbay, HMS Trenchant and HMS Talent are currently undergoing refit and repair at Devonport. The initial phase of the inspection programme for Trafalgar class submarines has shown that, of these, HMS Trenchant is clear of the defect affecting HMS Tireless, which is being prepared for repair in Gibraltar. Of the remaining submarines, HMS Trafalgar and HMS Turbulent show early signs of the defect and are alongside at Devonport. HMS Triumph has been found to be clear of the defect and will return to operational duties shortly.

  Chinese Armed Forces (UK Visits)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the occasions during May and June on which representatives of the Chinese armed forces visited the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement on the(a) purpose, (b) itinerary and (c) cost to his Department of each. [134428]

  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 26 October 2000]: There were three visits to the United Kingdom by representatives of the Chinese armed forces in May and June this year. These were:

  1. A PLA Logistics Delegation of six officers (led by a Major-General) visited the UK between 10–12 May in order to study the logistics organisation in the UK armed forces. The delegation visited the Defence Logistics Organisation in Bath, Andover and Yeovilton, and the Defence Procurement Agency in Bristol. The costs of the visit were met by the Chinese.

  2. The PLA Air Force Command College visited the UK between 28 May-4 June in order to learn about UK defence policy, the organisation of the RAF and its concept of operations in a joint environment. The delegation consisted of eight college staff (led by a Major-General), twenty-eight students, five interpreters, and eleven aircrew. They visited the MOD in London, RAF Brize Norton, RAF High Wycombe, RAF Lossiemouth, RAF Cranwell and BAE Systems in Warton. There were also cultural visits to London and Edinburgh. The cost of the visit to the MOD was approximately £10,000.

  3. General Cao, the Head of the Chinese General Equipment Department, and an accompanying delegation of twelve officers visited the UK between 18–25 June as part of an ongoing programme of senior military visits and ministerial exchanges. The General visited the MOD in London, the Defence Procurement Agency in Bristol, the Defence Logistics Organisation in Bath, BAE Systems in Farnborough and Warton, and Racal Electronics in Crawley. There were also cultural visits to London and Scotland. The cost of the visit to the MOD was some £15,700.

  6W
  In addition, a Chinese officer was attending the Royal College for Defence Studies course (which runs from January to December), and another officer was conducting English Language Training at the Defence School of Languages in Beaconsfield between 19 June-8 August. The cost of this training to the MOD was approximately £50,000 and £5,000 respectively.

  All of these visits were part of our wider efforts to develop a substantive defence relationship with China through regular balanced and reciprocal engagement in order to promote confidence-building and dispel mistrust.

  Defence co-operation forms a key part of the UK's overall strategy of constructive engagement with China, and improving contacts with the Chinese in all areas.

  Defence Medical Services
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many reserves there were in the Defence Medical Services in(a) the RAF, (b) the Army and (c) the Navy in (i) 1992–93, (ii) 1993–94, (iii) 1994–95, (iv) 1995–96, (v) 1996–97, (vi) 1997–98, (vii) 1998–99 and (viii) 1999–2000. [134294]

  Mr. Spellar

  [holding answer 30 October 2000]: The numbers of reservists in the Defence Medical Services for the years 1992 to 2000 are set out in the tables. They comprise members of the Volunteer Reserve Forces and the Regular Reserve Forces. The latter are ex-Regular personnel who retain a specific liability to call-out on leaving the Regular Forces. The figures do not include ex-Regular personnel who are not in a Reserve Force, but who retain a general liability to recall to the Regular Services in a serious crisis as defined in the Reserve Forces Act 1996. RAF figures are available only from 1 April 1998 as prior to this date medical and non-medical reservist manpower figures were not recorded separately.

  Volunteer Reservists

  Year

  Royal Naval Reserve

  Territorial Army

  Royal Auxiliary Air Force

  1992

  370

  6,125

  —

  1993

  340

  5,955

  —

  1994

  233

  5,355

  —

  1995

  328

  5,086

  —

  1996

  278

  4,758

  —

  1997

  256

  4,475

  —

  1998

  275

  4,434

  182

  1999

  276

  4,223

  231

  2000

  289

  4,395

  233

  Note:

  Figures are as at 1 April except for the Territorial Army for 1992 and 1993. The Territorial Army figure for 1992 is as at 1 May 1992 and for 1993 includes officers as at 1 March 1993.

  Regular Reservists

  Year

  Royal Fleet Reserve

  Army Reserve

  Air Force Reserve

  1992

  —

  2,445

  —

  1993

  —

  2,196

  —

  1994

  —

  2,175

  —

  1995

  —

  2,132

  —

  1996

  —

  2,092

  —

  7W

  Regular Reservists

  Year

  Royal Fleet Reserve

  Army Reserve

  Air Force Reserve

  1997

  101

  2,054

  —

  1998

  112

  1,917

  609

  1999

  92

  1,777

  564

  2000

  67

  1,699

  559

  Notes:

  1. Royal Fleet Reserve figures are as at 1 January. The figures comprise non-commissioned personnel only as figures for officers are not available and no figures are available prior to 1 January 1997.

  2. Army Reserve figures are as at 1 April except for 1992 and 1993. The Army Reserve figure for 1992 is at 1 May 1992 and for 1993 includes officers as at 1 March 1993.

  3. Air Force Reserve figures are as at 1 April.

  Research Projects
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how long his Department has given to BAE Systems RO Defence and Thomson Racal Defence to complete the radar counterstealth research; what response each company has made to the deadline; and if he will make a statement; [135702]

  (2) how many industry proposals to conduct three-year research projects into the new innovative radar counterstealth technologies his Department is reviewing; what is the estimated cost of each proposal; and if he will make a statement; [135748]

  (3) what targets his Department has set for Category B work to be undertaken for the purpose of inventive research; what percentage of the research budget is allotted for such research; what this represents in cash terms; and if he will make a statement; [135714]

  (4) if (a) BAE Systems RO Defence, (b) Thomson Racal Defence and (c) the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency have responded to his Department's mandates for three-year research projects; and if he will make a statement; [135713]

  (5) what assessment he has made of the impact of radar counterstealth technology on the exploitation of the stealth technology currently in use; if use of radar counterstealth technology will increase the ability to avoid detection; and if he will make a statement. [135753]

  Dr. Moonie
  I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Ship War Graves
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps the Government have taken to protect war graves of the HMS Repulse and HMS Prince of Wales; what further action is planned; what co-operation is taking place between the Governments of Malaysia and Singapore and the United Kingdom on this matter; and if he will make a statement. [135882]

  Dr. Moonie
  As I informed the House on 1 November 2000,Official Report, columns 243–50WH, my officials in both Malaysia and Singapore have made representations to officials within the respective governments. Both Malaysian and Singapore Navies have
  8W
  been asked to keep my officials informed of reports of intrusive diving or salvage and to inform us of any untoward activity in the area of the wrecks.

  Furthermore, I am mindful that although designation of HMS Repulse and HMS Prince of Wales may not present the degree of protection that is sought for these vessels, that designation would provide evidence of the wrecks' status and this Government's commitment to honour its war dead. For this reason I have asked my officials to look again at detailing what designation will entail and what it will provide and whether this can be linked effectively to ensure better protection. I will write to the hon. Member when this work is complete.

  Naval Fire Support
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what percentage of the total cost(a) his Department, (b) BAE Systems RO Defence, and (c) the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency will pay to fund the study to assess future naval fire-support requirements for the Royal Navy; and if he will make a statement; [135745]

  (2) how much time his Department, BAE Systems, and DERA have allotted for the fire-support requirements study; what percentage of the time frame will be dedicated to the development programme of the 155 mm naval gun; and if he will make a statement. [136000]

  Dr. Moonie
  Although some preliminary MOD funded studies are being conducted, we have yet to define a programme to assess future naval fire support requirements. A number of studies will be necessary ranging from operational analysis to technology research. Until this is done, it is not possible to estimate the scope or cost of the work. One study is about to start to examine the technical options for naval variants of the 155 mm artillery gun, one potential approach to meeting our requirement, and this has a 50/50 funding split between MOD and BAE Systems.

  Naval Equipment
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what estimate he has made of the cost of development and subsequent production of the 155 mm naval gun; and if he will make a statement; [135747]

  (2) what is the (a) timescale and (b) cost of retrofitting (i) Type 45 destroyers and (ii) new Type 45 destroyers with the new naval 155 mm gun; and if he will make a statement; [135989]

  (3) what (a) cost and (b) performance advantages the 155 mm naval gun to be deployed on the type 45 destroyer will have over the mk 8 mod I gun now deployed; and if he will make a statement; [135997]

  (4) how the development programme for construction of the 155 mm naval gun will ensure it is capable of unloading 20 rounds per minute; and if he will make a statement. [136003]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Type 45 Destroyer is being designed to allow the incremental incorporation of additional capabilities through life, to meet changing defence needs and to take advantage of technological developments. Some work is currently underway to consider what additional capabilities (including, potentially, enhanced
  9W
  naval fire support) we may need in the future but until it has been completed it would be inappropriate to prejudge its outcome. It is not therefore possible to estimate the value for money of a 155 mm gun or other potential solutions for Naval Fire Support for the Type 45.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress he has made in developing the new extended-range guided munitions for use in land-based 155 mm artillery; what has been the cost to date of the development and production of ERGMs for the(a) land-based and (b) naval 155 mm gun; and if he will make a statement. [135999]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Extended Range Guided Munitions programme is a specific US Naval project in which my Department has no direct involvement. The nearest UK equivalent programme is the Low Cost Guided Munition (LCGM) Research Programme. This is a research programme to develop new technologies and assess their application to land and maritime systems.

  Nuclear Submarines (Gibraltar)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what action his Department took to upgrade the Port of Gibraltar from category Z to category X for servicing nuclear submarines; and if he will make a statement. [136153]

  Mr. Spellar
  The category Z berth in Gibraltar Naval Base has not been upgraded to a category X berth.

  To undertake the specific repair to the reactor coolant system of HMS Tireless, the Z berth in Gibraltar has been enhanced to the standard necessary to obtain approval from the regulatory authority to undertake the repair.

  This included enhancing the management organisation in Gibraltar and providing the additional equipment needed for the repair. This equipment will be removed when the repair is completed. The temporary enhancement to the Z berth occupied by HMS Tireless does not involve structural work and there are no changes required to the existing emergency planning arrangements.

  Joint Helicopter Command
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he will implement joint flying rules for all three services in the Joint Helicopter Command; and if he will make a statement. [134308]

  Mr. Spellar

  [holding answer 2 November 2000]: Joint Flying Regulations have been in place for some time for all Service aircrew, including those in the Joint Helicopter Command although each of the three services retain individual regulations specific to their aircraft type and role. A review of regulations applying to military flying operations is currently under way and this work is due to be completed by January 2003. Other work, in parallel to the study, is being carried out to identify the areas where joint regulations need to be expanded.

  Lynx Helicopters
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Lynx helicopters are available for operational duty in(a) the Royal Navy, (b) the Army and (c) the RAF;
  10W
  for each service how many of those are flying beyond the 500-hour deep-servicing requirement; and if he will make a statement. [134298]

  Mr. Spellar

  [holding answer 2 November 2000]: On 26 October, the Army had 39 fully serviceable Lynx aircraft in units. As at 24 October, the Royal Navy had 17 Lynx aircraft allocated to current operational duty and a further 21 aircraft are carrying out training and support activity and could be made available for operations although at penalty to their primary activity. The RAF does not have any Lynx helicopters.

  'Deep' scheduled maintenance for Army Lynx aircraft is every 800 and 2,400 flying hours. The Royal Navy does not carry out block maintenance. Scheduled maintenance of Royal Navy Lynx aircraft is carried out on a rolling calendar basis throughout the life of the aircraft. Currently no Lynx aircraft is operating beyond authorised maintenance limits.

  Kosovo
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the relative contribution to the outcome of the conflict in Kosovo of(a) air power and (b) other factors. [136254]

  Mr. Spellar
  The success of the air operations, although a critical element, is unlikely to have been the sole reason why Milosevic eventually agreed to the international community's demands. Although it is certain to have had a substantial effect, we believe that it was the cumulative effects of international pressure on all fronts, diplomatic, economic (trade and financial) and military, that achieved the aims of the international community.

  Theatre Wide Area Communications System
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which British companies were asked to tender for the vehicle for the Theatre Wide Area Communications System; and if he will make a statement. [136784]

  Dr. Moonie
  Our procurement strategy has been to seek a prime contractor for the entire Theatre Wide Area Communications Network for the Joint Rapid Reaction Force. The two competing companies (Nortel Networks Global Professional Services (Defence) and Thomson Racal Defence) for the prime contract were invited to propose the most suitable means, including communications equipments and vehicles, to meet the capability requirement. My Department has therefore not sought any tenders directly for vehicles to meet this requirement.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the expected cost is for of the(a) Theatre Wide Area Communications System and (b) the vehicle to be used for the system; and if he will make a statement. [136788]

  Dr. Moonie
  In the absence of the selection of a preferred contractor and finalisation of negotiations, a firm figure is not available, but we expect the cost of the Theatre Wide Area Communications Network manufacture contract, including vehicles and the first three years support, to be around £120 million.
  11W
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the Bucher-Guyer Duro vehicle is used by(a) British and (b) NATO forces; and if he will make a statement. [136786]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Bucher-Guyer Duro vehicle is not currently used by British forces. I understand a total of some 3,500 of these vehicles are in service with the armed forces of Belgium, Switzerland and Malaysia.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the Bucher-Guyer Duro vehicle for use with the Theatre Wide Area Communications System; and if he will make a statement. [136782]

  Dr. Moonie
  Against the overall capability sought for the Theatre Wide Area Communications Network (TWACN) for the Joint Rapid Reaction Force the Bucher-Guyer Duro vehicle has been proposed as the most suitable vehicle by both companies competing for the prime contract. Assessment continues of both companies' offers for TWACN, including the vehicles, against the capability sought.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what specification of vehicle was prepared for the Theatre Wide Area Communications System; and if he will make a statement. [136785]

  Dr. Moonie
  The requirement sought from industry was in the form of the capability required for the entire Theatre Wide Area Communications Network (TWACN) for the Joint Rapid Reaction Force (JRRF). In broad terms this included a requirement for a vehicle capable of being deployed, including by air, and used in accordance with the needs of the JRRF. The detailed requirements applicable to the vehicle are classified and I am withholding them under paragraph la of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what tests the Bucher-Guyer Duro vehicle has undergone for use in the British Army; and if he will make a statement. [136787]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Bucher-Guyer Duro has been subjected to date to a range of tests including airportability; human factors integration; Theatre Wide Area Communications Network box body fit and integration with the Duro chassis; and, initial recovery assessment. We have received copies of reliability trials reports from both the Swiss Ministry of Defence and from Germany, plus a technical evaluation report from the Czech Republic. UK type approval from the Vehicle Certification Agency has been confirmed.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when contracts will be placed for the Theatre Wide Area Communications System; and if he will make a statement. [136783]

  Dr. Moonie
  We expect to place the prime contract for the entire Theatre Wide Area Communications Network for the Joint Rapid Reaction Force by the end of December 2000, subject to the satisfactory outcome of final contract negotiations with the preferred contractor, a decision on which is expected to be taken around the middle of November.

  Lee Clegg
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what grounds he decided that Lee Clegg could be paid retrospectively for loss of salary while in prison; and by what contractual arrangement he was required to make such a payment. [134885]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Army Pay Warrant (1964) directs the terms under which Army personnel are paid. In accordance with this Royal Warrant, pay was forfeited for the period of imprisonment awarded to Corporal (Cpl) Clegg. Following successful appeals, Cpl Clegg's convictions were quashed. As a result Cpl Clegg has no convictions against his name, and there are no regulations to prohibit the award of the pay that had been previously withheld.

  Force Research Unit
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the costs were of his attempts to prevent the Sunday People publishing articles concerning the activities of the Force Research Unit and allegations of collusion and loyalist paramilitaries. [134886]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Ministry of Defence's costs for this case are currently estimated at approximately £28,000. The Sunday People is paying its own costs.

  The Ministry of Defence made an application to the Court because there was good reason to believe that the Sunday People intended to print information that could put lives at risk and damage national security.

  The Court made Orders (agreed between the newspaper and MOD) on 13 October which include provisions preventing the newspaper publishing certain information of that kind.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Portcullis House (Refreshment Facilities)
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Chairman of the Catering Committee when the Refreshment Department's facilities in Portcullis House will be available for use by hon. Members and staff. [136289]

  Mr. Dennis Turner
  I fully understand the disappointment of hon. Members who had expected to be able to make use of refreshment facilities in Portcullis House as soon as the offices were ready for occupation.

  I am pleased to advise the hon. Member that "the debate" self-service restaurant and "the adjournment" brasserie on the ground floor of Portcullis House are expected to be handed over to the Refreshment Department on Monday 6 November. Thereafter. the Refreshment Department will require a period of three to four weeks to move their equipment and produce onto the site, complete staff training and conduct trial runs for the restaurant facilities.

  It is also expected that the first floor areas will be handed over to the Refreshment Department on Monday, in which case services to the meeting and conference rooms will be able to commence within the next two weeks.
  13W
  The Director of Catering Services has advised me that she hopes to be in a position to open full services in time for the State Opening of Parliament on Wednesday 6 December, but that bookings for "the adjournment" or the supply of refreshments to the first floor meeting rooms cannot be made until the premises have been formally handed over the Refreshment Department.

  The coffee bar to be positioned in the covered courtyard will not be in place until early in the New Year.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Gas Supplies
  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will discuss with the suppliers of gas to industry measures to offset major price increases of gas in the near future, which will have an effect on manufacturing industry; and if he will make a statement. [135264]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Since the spring, the wholesale price of gas has risen sharply and this has had an effect on many industrial and commercial customers, especially those who have contracts tied to the spot price. The main reason for this rise has been increased trade across the GB-Belgium interconnector reflecting high oil-related gas prices, particularly in north-west Europe.

  The Government are concerned about this rise. Work is already in hand to boost liberalisation and competition in Europe and thus break the link between gas and oil prices which keeps European prices higher than would otherwise generally be the case. This is the most effective long-term means of ensuring the competitive gas prices industry seeks. However, it is likely to take some time.

  Meanwhile, the Government are already in dialogue with participants in the industry about the gas price rise and this is being intensified. However, it is not the role of the Government to influence the prices charged by individual companies.

  Pensions (Post Offices)
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what arrangements have been put in place to ensure that those who choose to draw pensions in cash will continue to be able to do so at post offices. [135866]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The Government are committed to ensuring that all state benefit and pensions recipients who wish to do so will continue to be able to access their benefits in cash in full, at a post office counter both before and after the changeover to payment of benefits by automated credit transfer. The Post Office and the banks are currently discussing arrangements for the provision of Universal Banking services at post offices to facilitate this.

  Job Losses (Electronics Industry)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received on his industrial policy for the electronics industry in relation to job losses announced by Panasonic and Sony in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [135650]
  14W
  Dr. Howells

  [holding answer 30 October 2000]: I have not received any representations from the electronics industry in relation to the recent announcements by Panasonic and Sony.

  With the transfer of devolved powers to the National Assembly for Wales, such representations would be referred to them.

  Of course, I very much regret the job losses. The NAW is working closely with local partners and the Department for Education and Employment to provide assistance to those affected.

  Michael German (National Assembly Deputy First Minister) and David Rowe Beddoe (Chairman of the Welsh Development Agency) met with senior managers from Panasonic on 27 October 2000 and Mr. German attended the meeting of the Welsh Electronics Forum on 31 October 2000. The Forum has established a special taskforce to deal with the after effects of job losses in the consumer electronics sector in Wales which will meet in the very near future.

  The Government were alerted to the announcements prior to their publication on a confidential basis. Such decisions are ultimately commercial ones for the companies to take themselves to ensure their long term future. It is not the Government's policy to intervene in such decisions. In such a competitive sector as consumer electronics where companies operate on a global scale, costs are under constant review. It would be surprising, and rather worrying, if companies did not feel the need to re-assess and re-structure their operations from time to time.

  Both companies are still employing around 3,000 people in Wales between them and are committed to continuing their presence in Wales. Both are hoping to bring new higher value, more sophisticated production to their Welsh plants in the near future, and are investing heavily in their research and development facilities in Wales. This demonstrates the confidence that both companies have in the UK.

  The best contribution that the Government can make is to secure long term economic stability based on low inflation and sound public finances. This will allow business to invest and plan ahead with confidence.

  Shipbuilding Communities Campaign
  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the proposed establishment of a shipbuilding communities campaign modelled on the Coalfields Campaign. [136555]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  We have received no representations about such a proposal. However, as my hon. Friend is no doubt aware, we already have a very active and successful group for addressing the industry's concern, i.e. the Shipbuilding Forum. The Forum—which brings together industry, Government and the unions—has played a very constructive role in producing pragmatic solutions to the industry's concerns over the past two and a half years.

  Dounreay
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he will announce his decision on managing PFR fuels at Dounreay. [136104]

  Mrs. Liddell

  [holding answer 2 November 2000]: A public consultation was undertaken as part of this decision-making process. This raised a number of very different points of view. It has taken longer than expected to assess these. A decision will be announced as soon as this assessment is complete.

  Ex-Miners
  Dan Norris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what plans he has to improve access for ex-miners in Somerset to the Medical Assessment Process from a centre nearer to the area; [136459]

  (2) what provision has been made to enable ex-miners in Somerset to access the Medical Assessment Process from a test centre in Bristol. [136460]

  Mrs. Liddell
  There are currently 321 registered claims in the Somerset area. To date, Healthcall has received 79 completed sets of claims documentation—including claims questionnaires; financial and other losses questionnaires; and the Mandates required to access claimants medical records. Of these, 11 have been tested, and Healthcall is searching for the medical records of the remaining 68 cases.

  Healthcall currently has premises in Bristol that originally accommodated a set of COPD testing equipment. Due to the current lack of claimants ready to test in the Somerset area with completed claims documentation, this set of equipment was moved to meet demand in the South Wales area. The Bristol centre will be re-opened shortly to accommodate the claimants in the surrounding area.

  Healthcall is currently considering establishing a centre nearer to the bulk of the claimants in the Somerset areas.

  New Businesses in Rural Areas
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate he has made of the number of new businesses established in rural areas in each of the last five years. [136629]

  Dr. Howells
  When providing assistance to businesses, the Small Business Service (SBS) has historically recorded only the size of the business helped. Age of the business is not reported.

  Information on assistance given to farmers by Business Links is being collected this year as a result of the recent introduction of the Farm Business Advice Service. This is one of the measures introduced this year to help farming and horticultural industries within the Government's Action Plan for Farming announced this year on 30 March.

  Information on the number of farmers receiving assistance under these measures is not expected to be available until February 2001 as the initiative was introduced only in September.

  Employment Tribunal Compensation Awards
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many companies were established in each of the last three years whose directors have employment tribunal compensation awards against them in respect of their actions as directors of previously liquidated companies. [135331]

  Dr. Howells
  It is not possible to provide an answer to this question without incurring disproportionate cost. There is no requirement for this information to be submitted on the part of directors of newly incorporated companies under the Companies Acts; and Companies House has no ready way of correlating information on directors with such information as might be abstracted from employment tribunal records about the defined sub-set of former directors.

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many cases have been recorded of companies failing to make payments awarded by employment tribunals due to the company having been liquidated, in each of the last three years. [135332]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  Enforcement of Employment Tribunal awards is generally a matter for the county courts, though where an employer is insolvent, payment of a limited range of awards may be made from the National Insurance Fund.

  Records are not kept of the total number of Tribunal awards unpaid because of an employer's insolvency.

  National Minimum Wage
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the number of employers in breach of regulations relating to the national minimum wage during 1999–2000. [135330]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The independent Low Pay Commission monitored the impact of the national minimum wage in the Second Report published earlier this year. They reported that the early indications were that the vast majority of businesses are meeting their obligations to pay the national minimum wage.

  Bank Closures
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what impact he estimates the creation of the Universal Bank will have on the rate of bank branch closures. [136927]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  No such estimate has been made. However, proposals for the provision of Universal Banking services through the post office network, which the Post Office and the banks are currently developing, will substantially increase the volume of banking activity at post offices and will restore banking services to many areas where bank branches have closed.

  Oil and Gas Exploration
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to review the inspection mechanism under which licences are granted in the UK continental shelf for oil and gas exploration, where no development has taken place. [136308]
  17W
  Mrs. Liddell
  Fallow blocks and fallow discoveries are monitored on a regular basis.

  One of the results of the most recent fallow initiative, which was concluded in July, is that 18 previously fallow discoveries are to be developed. In addition, PILOT's Undeveloped Discoveries Workgroup has identified six areas on the UK Continental Shelf where the licensees involved are being urged to find innovative ways of working together, with the hope that at least three additional projects will have plans for development by mid-2001.

  Further steps will be taken as necessary to ensure the timely development of the UK's petroleum resources.

  Mission Status Review
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress has been made in achieving the statement of business principles as set out in the Department's mission status review; and whether he expects the deadline to be met. [136767]

  Mr. Caborn
  ECGD has posted a draft statement of Business Principles on its website www.ecgd.gov.uk and sought comments from interested parties as part of the consultation process. ECGD is on schedule to publish its statement of Business Principles by the end of this year.

  Copies of the draft statement have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Export Credit Agencies
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions he has had with his EU counterparts concerning the reform of export credits agencies. [136768]

  Mr. Caborn
  I have not held direct discussion with my EU counterparts on the reform of export credit agencies. However I attach great importance to the various initiatives ECGD is actively pursuing in the international forum at the OECD aimed at improving standards and disciplines applied by export credit agencies in project impact assessments, and in the areas of the environment, bribery and productive expenditure.

  These initiatives are in line with the outcome of the recent Review of ECGD's Mission and Status announced in Parliament by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on 25 July, 2000 Official Report, columns 520–21.

  I wrote to the OECD Secretary General following the publication of ECGD's Mission and Status Report to urge support for multilateral agreement in the OECD that others adopt similar principles.

  Post Offices
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the Government defines as a rural post office. [136681]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The Government definition of a rural post office is one located in a community of up to 10,000 inhabitants.

  Postal Services Commission
  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he will announce the membership of the Postal Services Commission. [125067]

  Mr. Byers

  [pursuant to my reply, 6 June 2000, c. 186W]: The Postal Services Commission has today become a statutory body created under the Postal Services Act 2000.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Waste Management
  Mr. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what guidance he will issue to the Mayor of London on the exercise of his development control powers in relation to waste management developments with a capacity of more than 50,000 tonnes per annum; and if he will publish such guidance. [134056]

  Mr. Meacher

  [holding answer 23 October 2000]: GOL Circular 1/2000 "Strategic Planning in London" published in June 2000, provides advice and guidance for the Mayor and London Boroughs on their responsibilities for strategic planning. The circular includes guidance on the relationship between the Borough's Unitary Development Plans, the Mayor's spatial development strategy and municipal waste management strategy, and the Mayor's role in decisions on planning applications. The circular also requires that the spatial development strategy should take account of Planning Policy Guidance Note 10—Planning and Waste Management, which provides advice on providing new waste management facilities consistent with sustainable development.

  Furthermore, in preparing the Municipal Waste Management Strategy the Mayor shall have regard to the National Waste Strategy (Waste Strategy 2000, CM 4693). We therefore have no plans to offer the Mayor further guidance on the exercise of his development control powers in relation to waste management facilities.

  Whistleblowers
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what procedures exist in his Department for a civil servant to report an action which(a) is illegal, improper or unethical, (b) is in breach of constitutional convention or a professional code, (c) may involve possible maladministration and (d) is otherwise inconsistent with the Civil Service Code. [134461]

  Mr. Hill
  Civil servants working in DETR have, at any time, the statutory right to express concerns under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998. Moreover, DETR employees also have a contractual obligation to report alleged breaches of the Civil Service Code in accordance with the procedures set out in the DETR Staff Handbook. The procedures require individuals, in the first instance, to approach a senior line manager and to ensure that evidence of criminal or unlawful activities by others are reported to the appropriate authorities. If the individual considers this to be inappropriate or they wish to take the
  19W
  matter further, they have the right to make a formal report to the Director of Human Resources, or other designated senior officer. It will always be assumed that the individual has made the report in good faith. A formal response will advise the individual that they have further rights to submit a written appeal to the Permanent Secretary and a further appeal to the Civil Service Commissioners.

  Water Conservation
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what initiatives he is pursuing to encourage water conservation. [135230]

  Mr. Meacher
  My Department is pursuing a number of initiatives to promote water conservation across a wide range of end users. Our 'Are You Doing Your Bit' campaign is encouraging individuals to make lifestyle changes to conserve water and to benefit the environment. Also, from 1 January 2001, the maximum flush volume of all new WCs will be reduced by 20 per cent. due to measures introduced by the Water Supply (Water Fittings) Regulations 1999. To help businesses reduce their environmental impact and improve their competitiveness the Environmental Technology Best Practice Programme provides information and best practice advice on efficient water use. My Department is also working closely with the Environment Agency and the Buying Agency on projects to reduce water use in schools and other public sector buildings.

  We are also taking steps in the Water Bill to prevent damaging over-abstraction.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what initiatives he is pursuing to promote energy efficiency in(a) the business environment and (b) the home. [135233]

  Mr. Meacher
  For business, we are introducing the Climate Change Levy and a new system of Enhanced Capital Allowances for energy saving products. We are continuing to support the Energy Efficiency Best Practice Programme and are also creating a new body (the Carbon Trust) with a specific brief to help business move towards an energy efficient economy.

  To promote energy efficiency in the home, my Department funds the Energy Saving Trust. The Trust runs a series of programmes which aim to improve awareness of energy efficiency, provide information and advice and to work with the market to develop and market energy efficient goods and services in the domestic and small business sectors.

  My Department also funds the Home Energy Efficiency Scheme, which provides comprehensive packages of heating and insulation improvements for the homes of those households who are most at risk from cold-related ill health—the elderly and families on low income and the disabled or chronically sick.

  In March this year my Department issued consultation proposals for a new and extended programme of Energy Efficiency Standards of Performance to run from 2002–05. These standards, to be set by Government, will require gas and electricity suppliers to encourage and
  20W
  assist consumers to make energy savings. Like earlier programmes, the new scheme will focus strongly on low-income groups, helping the Government's attack on fuel poverty. Provisional conclusions on the level and format of the scheme will be issued shortly.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what initiatives he has taken to promote Energy Efficiency Week. [135440]

  Mr. Meacher
  Energy Efficiency Week is part of the Energy Efficiency campaign run by the Energy Saving Trust, and funded by my Department. Activities during the week included the launch of a television and radio advertising campaign, a new energy efficiency website and the energy efficiency recommended logo. Events were staged on a national and regional level, with activities taking place around the country to promote the energy efficiency message to consumers.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) how many people on low incomes living in private sector homes in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) Devon have had energy efficiency measures implemented and central heating and security devices installed in their homes as part of the Home Energy Efficiency Scheme; and how many are waiting for such work to be carried out; [135930]

  (2) if he will make a statement on progress on the Home Energy Efficiency Scheme, with particular reference to the rate of installation of (a) loft insulation, (b) cavity wall insulation, (c) draught-proofing, (d) efficient central heating, (d) door and window locks, (e) spy holes and (f) smoke alarms; and what steps he is taking to ensure hot water and central heating work are given priority before the onset of winter. [136027]

  Mr. Meacher

  [holding answer 2 November 2000]: The new Home Energy Efficiency Scheme (HEES) for England was launched on 1 June 2000. It replaced a more basic scheme that had operated since 1991, providing low income and disabled households with a single insulation improvement such as window and door draught-proofing.

  New HEES provides packages of insulation and heating measures, linked to the condition of the property and the type of householder. To provide these packages the grant maximum has been raised from the previous £315 to up to £2,000 in the case of low-income households aged 60 years or more. The latter may also receive a package of basic security measures, funded through the Home Office 'Locks for Pensioners' initiative, if they live in an area experiencing above the national average burglary rate for England.

  The scheme is managed by two regional scheme managers. They are responsible for marketing the scheme and surveying homes to identify the improvements required. Once these are agreed with the householder, a works order is placed with local contractors.

  The table sets out the number of households that have had work completed and those where orders have been, or are about to be, placed. Due to the package approach taken, it is not possible to break down the individual insulation and security measures that will be provided to households.
  21W

  Type of measure

  Number of households in England (of which in Devon) where work has been completed and invoices received

  Number of households in England (of which in Devon) where work orders issued to contractors
  1

  Number of households in England (of which in Devon) where work orders yet to be issued to installers

  Insulation and security measures

  21,960 (571)

  42,054 (982)

  1,007 (0)

  Installation of new central heating system and insulation

  663 (1)

  9,287 (472)

  2,968 (19)

  Repair to broken central heating system

  1,290 (0)

  8,126 (186)

  425 (15)

  1 Due to the one to three week delay between the completion of the work and the issue of invoices by contractors it is likely that work has already been completed in some of these households.

  In addition to those shown above, there are a further 5,200 properties (of which 132 are in Devon) where permission is awaited from private landlords or owner occupiers for the work to be carried out.

  After a slow start on the summer, insulation measures are now being installed within four to six weeks from the date of survey.

  The national shortage of qualified heating engineers has severely affected the rate at which central heating systems are being repaired or installed. Devon is one of the areas most affected, with the shortage reflected in labour costs which are up to 20 per cent. higher than elsewhere in the country.

  We are working with the heating industry to address this shortage of trained engineers. In addition, as part of its Affordable Warmth Programme, Transco has also allocated some £10 million towards the training of energy efficiency professionals, including new heating engineers. In the meantime, additional contractors are being sought, and it is expected that the backlog on repairs should be cleared by the end of the year. However some delays in the installation of new heating systems are likely to continue until additional engineers become available.

  As energy efficiency is a devolved matter, it is the responsibility of the respective Parliament and Assemblies to comment on the situation in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

  Concessionary Fares
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects consultations upon concessionary fares for bus travel to be completed. [135741]

  Mr. Hill

  [holding answer 31 October 2000]: We issued last December a consultation paper on the implementation of the statutory minimum concessionary fares commitment. The consultation is now complete, and is being taken into account in consideration of implementation of the provisions in the Transport Bill, which is at present before Parliament.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions which local authorities operate a concessionary fare travel scheme for senior citizens that are not part of a Passenger Transport Authority; and if he expects these schemes to continue when the Government scheme for half fare travel is introduced. [135214]

  Mr. Hill
  Most local authorities outside Passenger Transport Authorities operate a concessionary travel scheme for senior citizens. The Transport Bill, which is at present before Parliament, provides for a statutory 22W
  minimum local authority scheme which will ensure travel for pensioners on local buses at half fare or better, with a free bus pass. Any existing schemes which do not meet that standard will need to be improved; there are no requirements for other schemes to be changed.

  Car Ownership
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the principal elements in the cost of car ownership in(a) 1970, (b) 1980, (c) 1990 and (d) the latest date for which figures are available, indicating in each year the percentage of these costs of average earnings. [135407]

  Mr. Hill
  The principal elements in the costs of car ownership are set out in the table with a baseline figure of 100 for 1970. A similar index for average earnings is included and all figures are adjusted for overall inflation:

  1970

  1980

  1990

  1999

  All motoring expenditure:

  100

  103

  90

  100

  of which:

  Motor vehicle purchase:

  100

  98

  77

  67

  Maintenance:

  100

  120

  124

  149

  Petrol and oil:

  100

  112

  92

  122

  Tax and insurance:

  100

  71

  83

  113

  Average earnings:

  100

  119

  150

  174

  The information on changing costs comes from the Retail Prices Index, which monitors price changes over time for a standard collection of goods and services. Average earnings data are collected at April each year by means of a survey and represent the gross pay of adults working full-time whose pay is unaffected by absence. All figures are for Great Britain.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what have been the changes in the costs of(a) private car ownership, (b) rail travel and (c) bus travel since 1970. [135396]

  Mr. Hill
  Information on relative price changes is collected by the Office for National Statistics for use in the Retail Prices Index (RPI). The DETR also collects specific information on changes to average bus fares. Setting indices to a base figure of 100 in 1970 changes, without allowing for inflation, are as follows:

  1970

  1999

  Motoring costs

  100

  877

  Train fares

  100

  1,663

  Bus fares

  100

  1,483

  Overall RPI

  100

  880

  Emissions
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the(a) amount and (b) percentage was of (i) carbon dioxide and (ii) nitrogen oxide emissions in (1) 1970, (2) 1980, (3) 1990 and (4) the last year for which figures are available in the road transport sector. [135409]

  Mr. Hill
  Official estimates of the annual emissions of air pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions in the UK since 1970 are contained in my Department's National Atmospheric Emission Inventory. The table shows road transport's contribution to national emissions of carbon dioxide and nitrogen oxides by source category in 1970, 1980, 1990 and 1998. 1998 is the last year official data are currently available.

  1970

  1980

  1990

  1998

  CO2 emissions from road transport

  Ktonnes1

  16,299

  21,221

  29,776

  31,529

  Percentage of total UK emissions

  8.8

  12.9

  18.7

  21.2

  NOx emissions from road transport

  Ktonnes

  769

  989

  1,328

  799

  Percentage of total UK emissions

  30.8

  38.2

  47.6

  45.6

  1 As carbon

  Road Resurfacing
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when information and advice from the Highways Agency will be available on the priorities for resurfacing concrete roads up to 2010. [136012]

  Mr. Hill
  Information on the initial priorities for resurfacing concrete roads will be available next spring after the Highways Agency has obtained and considered the views of local authorities on the approach they propose for prioritising the work.

  Tyre Safety
  Mr. Moore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what investigations he has instigated to ascertain the safety of Firestone tyres fitted to Ford Explorer vehicles imported from the United States of America. [135842]

  Mr. Hill

  [holding answer 31 October 2000]: There is a possibility that under certain circumstances and operating conditions that tread separation and rapid tyre deflation may occur in the case of Firestone P235/75 R 15 Radial ATX, ATX11 and Wilderness AT—all "S" rated tyres fitted to Ford Explorer vehicles.

  The Secretary of State's power in this respect is limited to checking compliance on the part of Bridgestone/Firestone UK Ltd. with the voluntary Code of Practice on the recall of tyres drawn up by the Department and the Tyre Industry Council.

  Vehicle Inspectorate Vehicle Safety Branch is satisfied that the company has taken the appropriate action in recalling Firestone P235/75 R 15 Radial ATX, ATX11 and Wilderness AT—all "S" rated—tyres fitted to Ford
  24W
  Explorer vehicles. In accordance with the terms of the Code, this action has been registered with the Vehicle Inspectorate.

  Road Deaths
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many people were killed in road accidents in(a) 1997, (b) 1998 and (c) 1999 in Devon; and how many of these were children. [135814]

  Mr. Hill

  [holding answer 1 November 2000]: The number of children and adults killed in road accidents in Devon for the years 1997–1999 are shown in the table:

  Fatalities in Devon, by age: 1997–1999

  Casualties

  Year

  Child
  1

  Adult

  All

  1997

  4

  52

  56

  1998

  4

  49

  53

  1999

  2

  46

  48

  Total

  10

  147

  157

  1 Aged 0 to 15

  Rail Vehicle Accessibility
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if there is an exemption order for the fleet of new Class 170/3 trains to be introduced into service by South West Trains Ltd. in respect of the provisions of the Rail Vehicle Accessibility Regulations 1998; and if he will make a statement. [137186]

  Mr. Hill
  We have received an application from South West Trains Ltd. relating to the new Class 170/3 trains they wish to introduce into service. The exemptions have been discussed with our statutory advisers, the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee. An exemption Order relating to the exemption of these trains was laid before Parliament on 3 November 2000. Copies are available from the Library.

  Further applications for exemption from certain aspects of the Rail Vehicle Accessibility Regulations 1998 have also been received from Gatwick Express for their Class 460 vehicles, Chiltern Railways Ltd. for their Class 168/1 vehicles and South West Trains in relation to their Class 458 vehicles. The exemptions sought were also discussed with the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee. The exemption Order relating to the Gatwick Express vehicles was laid before Parliament on 1 September 2000 while the Orders relating to the Chiltern Railways and South West Trains vehicles were both laid before Parliament on 8 September 2000.

  The exemptions will not prevent disabled people from using the new trains. Indeed, we believe that their introduction will make a significant contribution to improving mobility opportunities for disabled people.

  Transport (Disabled Access)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what recent representations he has received concerning the introduction of legislation to improve access to transport
  25W
  for disabled people; what has been his response; what proposals he has to improve access for disabled people; and if he will make a statement. [137005]

  Mr. Hill
  The Department has held widespread consultations with disability organisations and with the transport industries in the course of developing proposals to implement the transport provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.

  Regulations have been in place since the end of 1998 to require all new trains to meet detailed technical standards to guarantee accessibility. In the order of 250 trains in service are already DDA compliant. Regulations setting similar standards for buses used on local or scheduled services are also in place and will take effect from 31 December this year. A package of measures to introduce access requirements for licensed taxis is being finalised and will be subject to further consultation.

  In addition, we are also considering the recommendations of the Disability Rights Task Force as they relate to transport and I hope to make a statement in response to the recommendations shortly.

  Render Plants
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what powers he has(a) to deal with the problem of smell from animal render plants and (b) to ensure that regulations are enforced by local authorities. [136438]

  Mr. Meacher
  Animal rendering plants are regulated under the air pollution control regime established by Part I of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Regulation is transferring to the Pollution Prevention and Control Act 1999 over a transitional period.

  In accordance with the 1990 Act, rendering plant must be authorised and regulators must include in authorisations conditions aimed at ensuring the use of the Best Available Techniques Not Entailing Excessive Cost (BATNEEC) to prevent, minimise and render harmless emissions. "Harm" is defined in the Act as including offence to the senses and hence local authorities must address any odour issues. The statutory guidance issued to regulators concerning BATNEEC for animal rendering plant focuses especially on the odour issue and we updated and strengthened the guidance earlier this year.

  The 1990 Act gives regulatory responsibility for animal rendering plant to local authorities. It additionally provides the Secretary of State with a number of reserve powers which could be exercised in the event of regulatory failings. These include the power to direct what conditions should be imposed in a given case, to direct whether an enforcement notice should be served or whether an authorisation should be revoked, to direct that regulatory responsibility be transferred to the Environment Agency, and to direct that an application for authorisation be referred to him for determination.

  Drink Driving
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what research he has evaluated as to the age groups most prone to drinking and driving; and if he will make a statement; [136505]
  26W
  (2) what research he has commissioned on the best ways to discourage drinking and driving; [136511]

  Mr. Hill
  The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions has commissioned a wide-ranging programme of research into drinking and driving. This research has included trends in drinking and driving, and characteristics of drink drive offenders, including the age distribution. Research has also evaluated the drink drive rehabilitation scheme and reviewed the High Risk Offender scheme. Other research has considered drink drivers' attitudes to enforcement and penalties. Much of this research is reflected in the Government's Road Safety Strategy "Tomorrows Roads—Safer for Everyone". The following research reports, published by the Transport Research Laboratory, are relevant:

  Drinking and driving in Great Britain—a review. G. Maycock. TRL Report 232. 1997.

  The high risk offender scheme for drink-drivers. G. P. Davies et al. TRL Report 394. 1999.

  Drink/driver rehabilitation courses in England and Wales. G. P. Davies et al. TRL Report 426. 1999.

  Unlawful driving behaviour: a criminological perspective. C. Corbett et al. TRL Contractor Report CR 301. 1992.

  Copies of these reports have been placed in the Library of the House of Commons.

  An analysis of drink-drive data, including trends in accidents involving illegal alcohol levels, casualty and accident characteristics and breath test outcomes is included annually in Road Accidents Great Britain.

  The Department also commissions market research into the attitudes of those who drink and drive so that its advertising can be effectively directed.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many(a) deaths and (b) serious injuries in the last 10 years have been attributed to drinking and driving. [136503]

  Mr. Hill
  The data required are given in the table.

  The estimated number of fatalities in accidents involving illegal alcohol levels in the years 1989–99 was 6,520, and the estimated number of serious injuries for the same time period was 35,170.

  Table 2a: Estimates of casualties involving illegal alcohol levels and the consequent casualties adjusted for under reporting: 1988–99

  Number

  Year

  Fatal

  Serious

  Slight

  Total

  1988

  790

  5,100

  16,860

  22,740

  1989

  810

  4,790

  16,620

  22,220

  1990

  760

  4,090

  15,550

  20,400

  1991

  660

  3,610

  13,610

  17,880

  1992

  660

  3,280

  12,770

  16,710

  1993

  540

  2,660

  11,780

  14,980

  1994

  540

  2,840

  11,780

  15,160

  1995

  540

  3,000

  12,450

  16,000

  1996

  580

  3,010

  13,450

  17,040

  1997

  550

  2,940

  13,310

  16,800

  1998

  460

  2,520

  12,610

  15,590

  19991

  420

  2,430

  13,980

  16,830

  1 Provisional data. Final fatality data from coroners are available for 1998 but 1999 estimates are based on around three-quarters of expected coroners' returns and may be biased. They remain provisional until more complete information for 1999 is available.

  27W
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what research he has commissioned on the impact of insurance costs for drivers aged 17 to 25 on the rate of drinking and driving. [136504]

  Mr. Hill
  None.

  Local Government Finance
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what changes he plans to make to the SSA methodology following the transfer of funding for 2001–02 for Adult Education, Nursery Education Grant and Care Leavers Grant. [137067]

  Ms Armstrong
  We have consulted local government on whether adjustments were required to the SSA methodology to reflect the transfers of funding for Adult Education, Nursery Education Grant and Care Leavers Grant. Over 100 responses were received, the vast majority supporting our recommended approach.

  I therefore propose that we implement our recommended approach. That is, that we make no change to the SSA methodology for Other Education or Children's Social Services following the transfers for Adult Education and Care Leavers Grant, and that we make a small adjustment to the Under 5s SSA methodology following the transfer of funding for Nursery Education for four-year-olds. The purpose of the adjustment to the Under 5s SSA is to ensure that the distribution of this funding matches, as closely as possible, the previous distribution under specific grant.

  Rural Areas
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the Government's definition of a rural area. [136727]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Government have no single definition of a rural area. But different definitions are used for different policy purposes to ensure that policies are sensitive to differing circumstances and to ensure administrative efficiency.

  The Countryside Agency, which is the Government's statutory adviser on issues relating to the environmental, economic and social well being of the English countryside currently uses a working definition of rural areas as those wards which lie outside settlements of 10,000 people.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many people in England live in settlements of between 2,000 and 20,000, and, of this number, how many live in settlements of 10,000 or more. [136719]

  Mr. Meacher
  In 1991 the population living in settlements in England of the following size was:

  Settlements of 2,000–20,000: 6,890,253

  Settlements of 10,000–20,000: 2,682,336 (included in above)

  These figures are taken from the 1991 Urban Area statistics. More recent information is not currently available.

  Parish Councils
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if the Government have any plans to change the law on parish referendums. [136726]

  Ms Armstrong
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply 1 gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) on 2 November 2000,Official Report, column 551W.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many new parish councils have been formed in each of the last 10 years. [136718]

  Ms Armstrong
  The table shows the number of new parishes that have been created in each of the last ten years:

  Year

  Number of parishes created

  1990–91

  19

  1991–92

  10

  1992–93

  6

  1993–94

  10

  1994–95

  4

  1995–96

  18

  1996–97

  9

  1997–98

  1

  1998–99

  20

  1999–2000

  42

  Trans-European Network
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what ports in the UK are included in the Trans-European Network transport network; and what(a) EU and (b) UK funds have been used for improving facilities at those ports in each year since 1994. [129466]

  Mr. Hill

  [pursuant to his reply, 12 July 2000, c. 561–62 W]:

  £ million

  Year

  Ports receiving funds

  EU funding

  1995

  None

  —

  1996

  None

  —

  1997

  Portsmouth, Great Yarmouth, Boston, Port of London, Southampton, Felixstowe, Heysham

  0.70

  1998

  Portsmouth, Sunderland, Tyne, Humber, Heysham, Southampton, Harwich

  1.60

  1999

  Great Yarmouth

  0.24

  Rail Freight
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what will be the(a) initial and (b) longer-term cargo-deck heights on the sprinter trains proposed by the winner of the recent rail freight competition; and if the layout of their longer-term sprinter-train design has been finalised. [129997]
  29W
  Mr. Hill

  [pursuant to his reply, 10 July 2000, c. 403–04W]: I would like to confirm that the deck-height of the Railtrack MPVC (multi-purpose vehicle container) used in the trials is 1,200 mm and of the intermediate container flats 1,000 mm and not as printed in the Official Report.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what will be the maximum cargo height on the piggyback trailer systems that have been proposed by the winner of the recent rail freight competition. [129996]

  Mr. Hill

  [pursuant to his reply, 10 July 2000, c. 404W]: I would like to confirm that the maximum cargo-height will be 3.4 m permitting the conveyance of the semi-trailer or 9'6" ISO containers in the wagon pockets or a C45 Swapbody over SBI-c cleared routes and not as printed in the Official Report.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions in how many of his Department's PH contracts KPMG has been an adviser. [132868]

  Ms Beverley Hughes

  [pursuant to her reply, 27 July 2000, c. 773W]: I have now been advised that KPMG have also acted as a financial adviser and quality assurance to the Vehicle Inspectorate for the procurement process of the computerisation of MOT testing project. The contract was signed in April 1998.

  Supporting People Programme
  Mr. Prosser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will make further information available on the structure and resourcing of the Supporting People programme. [133617]

  Mr. Raynsford

  [pursuant to his reply, 27 July 2000, c. 778W]: I would like to confirm that we will be providing £153 million of revenue funding over three years to enable to implement the Supporting People programme and not £140 million as printed in the Official Report.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Security Situation
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to his answer of 12 June 2000,Official Report, column 491W, what steps have been taken to reduce the security presence consistent with the level of threat; and what steps will be taken in the next three months. [134883]

  Mr. Ingram
  Further to the Secretary of State's statement in the House on 12 June 2000,Official Report, columns 491–92W, all the measures have now been completed except for the Cookstown base and the Fort George army base. These should be finalised this month and the beginning of December respectively.
  30W
  On 29 September the Chief Constable announced a further tranche of normalisation measures. These were:

  demolition of six patrol bases in Co. Fermanagh;

  closure and demolition of Long Kesh Army base situated beside HM Prison, Maze;

  return to its owners of land at Newtownhamilton, currently used by security forces; and

  closure of Strand Road Holding Centre in Londonderry and granting of solicitor access to terrorist suspects held at Gough Barracks, Armagh.

  All these measures have been set in train and will be completed within six months. Further measures will be taken when it is safe to do so.

  Secondary Education
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will place in the Library a copy of the report published by the Northern Ireland Department of Education, 'The Effects of the Selective System of Secondary Education in Northern Ireland'. [135825]

  Mr. Mandelson
  A copy of the report will be placed in the Library shortly.

WALES

  Fuel Protests
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps have been taken to prevent disruption by fuel protests in Wales. [136614]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I have been asked to reply.

  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary published on 29 September a memorandum of understanding signed by all members of the Fuel Supply Task Force aimed at putting in place more robust systems to avoid disruption of fuel supplies throughout the United Kingdom. He also made a statement to the House on 2 November 2000, the details of which are contained in the Official Report, columns 837–52.

  My right hon. Friend the First Minister of the National Assembly for Wales is a member of the task force and a signatory of the memorandum and will continue to be fully involved in the task force's work.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many of the troops trained to drive fuel tankers in the event of fuel protests will be stationed in Wales. [136615]

  Mr. Spellar
  I have been asked to reply.

  Should the armed forces be asked to provide assistance, their precise disposition will be determined at the time in consultation with the relevant civil authorities. This will take into account a number of factors, in particular the relative need for military support for the delivery of fuel in different parts of the country.

  University Spaces
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many(a) applications for degree courses were received and (b) vacant university spaces there were in each of the past five years in Wales. [134913]

  Mr. Hanson
  The numbers of applications to Welsh higher education institutions1 are shown in the table:

  Year of admission

  Number of applications
  2

  1995

  116,455

  1996

  88,131

  1997

  91,173

  1998

  89,548

  1999

  88,247

  1 The number of higher education institutions in Wales, within the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS), was 15 for the years 1995 to 1998, rising to 16 in 1999.

  2 In 1995 up to eight selections were available to each applicant, subsequently reduced to six.

  Source:

  UCAS

  Information on the number of vacant university spaces is not available centrally.

  Foreign Investment
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what initiatives are being pursued by his Department to attract foreign investment in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [134899]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Since primary responsibility for promoting Wales as a location for inward investment now rests with the National Assembly for Wales, my Department is pursuing no specific initiatives to this end. However, I maintain close contact with the First Minister and his Cabinet and with the Chairman of the WDA. I and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State also emphasise the attractions of Wales for foreign investment when our duties involve meetings with people from overseas.

  The National Assembly, in conjunction with its "Team Wales" partners, continues to enjoy considerable success in securing projects from foreign investors. Important developments announced during the current year have included:

  One2One Personal Communications Ltd. at Merthyr Tydfil;

  Cycle City Ltd. at Bangor;

  SPX Contech at Welshpool;

  General Domestic Appliances Ltd. at Bodelwyddan; and Manpower plc at Pembroke Dock.

  These five projects will involve capital investment totalling more than £50 million. They are expected to create nearly 1,500 new jobs, while safeguarding a further 1,000.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much foreign investment Wales received in the last 10 years. [135226]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Between April 1990 and March 2000, capital expenditure reported by overseas-owned companies at the time of the investment decision was £8,603 million.

  School Closures
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the number of(a) junior and (b) secondary school closures by constituency in Wales in each of the last five years. [135221]

  Mr. Hanson
  Information is not available by constituency. Local education authorities (LEAs) notified the Welsh Office of the following school closures between 1 January 1995 and 30 June 1999. On 1 July 1999, responsibility for education transferred to the National Assembly for Wales.

  LEA

  School

  Primary
  1

  1995

  Dyfed

  Blaenau CP School

  Dyfed

  Llanddeusant CP School

  Clwyd

  Llanfihangel Glyn Myfyr CP School

  Dyfed

  Crugybar CP School

  1996

  Mid Glamorgan

  Ferndale Junior School

  Mid Glamorgan

  Dyffryn Infants School

  1997

  Ceredigion

  Brongest CP School

  Conwy

  Ysgol Llwydgoed

  1998

  Pembrokeshire

  Barham VC Primary School

  Pembrokeshire

  Rosemarket VC School

  Carmarthenshire

  Llandyfaelog VCP School

  Conwy

  Ysgol Cadnant

  Conwy

  Ysgol Bodlondeb

  Conwy

  Ysgol Babanod Gyffin

  Caerphilly

  Brithdir Primary School

  1999 (to 30 June)

  Rhondda Cynon Taff

  Dunraven Primary School

  Rhondda Cynon Taff

  Blaenrhondda Primary School

  Rhondda Cynon Taff

  Blaenycwm Primary School

  Secondary

  1995–97

  No closures

  —

  1998

  Blaenau Gwent

  Glanyrafon Comprehensive School

  1999 (to 30 June)

  No closures

  —

  1 it is not possible consistently to distinguish junior schools

  In addition, there were 17 amalgamations of infant and junior school during the period covered by these figures. Some amalgamations might have resulted in the closure of premises.

  Class Sizes
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the average class sizes in(a) junior and (b) secondary schools in each local education authority in Wales in each of the last three years. [135224]
  33W
  Mr. Hanson
  The following is the available information for 1997–98 and 1998–99. Responsibility for education transferred to the National Assembly for Wales on 1 July 1999.

  Average class sizes for registered Key Stages 2 classes in maintained primary schools

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Isle of Anglesey

  24.6

  24.2

  Gwynedd

  25.0

  24.9

  Conwy

  27.2

  27.2

  Denbighshire

  27.7

  27.6

  Flintshire

  29.8

  28.0

  Wrexham

  28.6

  28.0

  Powys

  24.1

  23.7

  Ceredigion

  22.4

  21.9

  Pembrokeshire

  24.6

  25.0

  Carmarthenshire

  23.5

  23.9

  Swansea

  28.6

  29.1

  Neath Port Talbot

  26.8

  27.1

  Bridgend

  30.5

  29.7

  Vale of Glamorgan

  28.6

  28.2

  Rhondda Cynon Taff

  28.8

  28.0

  Merthyr Tydfil

  28.9

  28.3

  Caerphilly

  29.2

  28.9

  Blaenau Gwent

  30.1

  29.8

  Torfaen

  30.4

  28.5

  Monmouthshire

  29.4

  29.5

  Newport

  30.1

  29.3

  Cardiff

  28.9

  28.6

  Average class sizes for registered classes in maintained secondary schools

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Isle of Anglesey

  19.5

  20.5

  Gwynedd

  17.7

  18.1

  Conwy

  20.8

  22.1

  Denbighshire

  19.9

  20.3

  Flintshire

  20.1

  19.8

  Wrexham

  22.0

  22.7

  Powys

  17.7

  17.8

  Ceredigion

  19.7

  18.2

  Pembrokeshire

  21.5

  20.5

  Carmarthenshire

  20.9

  20.8

  Swansea

  21.0

  20.8

  Neath Port Talbot

  20.9

  21.1

  Bridgend

  21.7

  20.7

  Vale of Glamorgan

  22.4

  21.0

  Rhondda Cynon Taff

  20.5

  20.6

  Merthyr Tydfil

  19.2

  20.2

  Caerphilly

  20.5

  20.9

  Blaenau Gwent

  19.3

  19.5

  Torfaen

  21.0

  21.2

  Monmouthshire

  20.2

  21.2

  Newport

  21.4

  21.8

  Cardiff

  22.5

  23.2

  Welsh Language
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of children received their education in the primary education sector through the medium of Welsh(a) within Wales as a whole and (b) by constituency, in each year since 1980. [135688]

  Mr. Hanson
  Figures for Wales are available only from the academic year 1985–86. At the constituency level, they are available only from 1996–97. Responsibility for education transferred to the National Assembly for Wales on 1 July 1999.
  34W
  Available information is set out in the tables:

  Percentage of primary school pupils in classes where Welsh is the sole or main medium of instruction—Wales

  Year

  Percentage

  1985–86

  11.7

  1986–87

  11.9

  1987–88

  12.2

  1988–89

  12.5

  1989–90

  13.5

  1990–91

  14.1

  1991–92

  16.0

  1992–93

  16.6

  1993–94

  16.4

  1994–95

  17.1

  1995–96

  17.2

  1996–97

  17.2

  1997–98

  17.7

  1998–99

  17.7

  Constituencies

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Ynys MÖn

  66.7

  68.1

  65.7

  Caernarfon

  100.0

  100.0

  100.0

  Conwy

  43.7

  42.6

  36.4

  Clwyd, West

  23.0

  22.5

  23.0

  Vale of Clwyd

  14.0

  13.6

  13.8

  Delyn

  13.5

  12.8

  12.3

  Alyn and Deeside

  0.9

  0.9

  1.0

  Wrexham

  9.6

  9.9

  9.2

  Clwyd, South

  13.3

  14.2

  14.6

  Meirionnydd Nant Conwy

  88.4

  97.5

  89.5

  Montgomeryshire

  19.0

  19.3

  19.3

  Brecon and Radnorshire

  8.6

  8.6

  8.3

  Ceredigion

  72.1

  72.0

  71.2

  Preseli Pembrokeshire

  20.9

  21.4

  21.9

  West Carmarthen and South Pembrokeshire

  17.4

  17.2

  17.6

  East Carmarthen and Dinefwr

  69.8

  70.2

  71.3

  Llanelli

  30.0

  28.8

  30.3

  Gower

  9.2

  9.0

  9.2

  Swansea, West

  6.9

  7.1

  7.2

  Swansea, East

  5.7

  6.3

  6.7

  Neath

  24.3

  24.1

  24.1

  Aberavon

  4.9

  5.1

  4.9

  Bridgend

  7.7

  7.4

  7.5

  Ogmore

  9.9

  9.9

  9.8

  Vale of Glamorgan

  8.0

  8.1

  9.1

  Cardiff, South and Penarth

  7.0

  7.3

  7.4

  Cardiff, Central

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Cardiff, North

  11.2

  11.7

  13.6

  Cardiff, West

  7.9

  8.3

  9.1

  Pontypridd

  18.3

  18.5

  18.3

  Rhondda

  14.8

  15.4

  16.2

  Cynon Valley

  13.4

  13.8

  14.1

  Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney

  9.8

  9.6

  10.7

  Caerphilly

  12.6

  13.0

  13.3

  Islwyn

  4.4

  5.1

  5.3

  Blaenau Gwent

  4.1

  4.1

  4.1

  Torfaen

  3.4

  3.5

  4.2

  Monmouth

  0.8

  0.9

  1.1

  Newport, East

  3.8

  4.1

  4.1

  Newport, West

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  source:

  Welsh Office Schools Census

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of children received their education through the medium of Welsh(a) within Wales as a whole and (b) by constituency, in each year since 1980. [135687]
  35W
  Mr. Hanson
  Information is not available in the form requested. Because data are not collected on the same basis from primary and secondary schools, separate tables are provided, setting out the most appropriate available indicators for each sector. Figures for primary schools are available only from the academic year 1985–86. In both sectors, a constituency-level breakdown is available only from 1996–97. Responsibility for education transferred to the National Assembly for Wales on 1 July 1999.

  Percentage of primary school pupils in classes where Welsh is the sole or main medium of instruction Wales

  Percentage

  1985–86

  11.7

  1986–87

  11.9

  1987–88

  12.2

  1988–89

  12.5

  1989–90

  13.5

  1990–91

  14.1

  1991–92

  16.0

  1992–93

  16.6

  1993–94

  16.4

  1994–95

  17.1

  1995–96

  17.2

  1996–97

  17.2

  1997–98

  17.7

  1998–99

  17.7

  Constituencies

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Ynys Mön

  66.7

  68.1

  65.7

  Caernarfon

  100.0

  100.0

  100.0

  Conwy

  43.7

  42.6

  36.4

  Clwyd, West

  23.0

  22.5

  23.0

  Vale of Clwyd

  14.0

  13.6

  13.8

  Delyn

  13.5

  12.8

  12.3

  Alyn and Deeside

  0.9

  0.9

  1.0

  Wrexham

  9.6

  9.9

  9.2

  Clwyd, South

  13.3

  14.2

  14.6

  Meirionnydd Nant Conwy

  88.4

  97.5

  89.5

  Mongomeryshire

  19.0

  19.3

  19.3

  Brecon and Radnorshire

  8.6

  8.6

  8.3

  Ceredigion

  72.1

  72.0

  71.2

  Preseli Pembrokeshire

  20.9

  21.4

  21.9

  Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire

  17.4

  17.2

  17.6

  Carmarthen East and Dinefwr

  69.8

  70.2

  71.3

  Llanelli

  30.0

  28.8

  30.3

  Gower

  9.2

  9.0

  9.2

  Swansea, West

  6.9

  7.1

  7.2

  Swansea, East

  5.7

  6.3

  6.7

  Neath

  24.3

  24.1

  24.1

  Aberavon

  4.9

  5.1

  4.9

  Bridgend

  7.7

  7.4

  7.5

  Ogmore

  9.9

  9.9

  9.8

  Vale of Glamorgan

  8.0

  8.1

  9.1

  Cardiff, South and Penarth

  7.0

  7.3

  7.4

  Cardiff, Central

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Cardiff, North

  11.2

  11.7

  13.6

  Cardiff, West

  7.9

  8.3

  9.1

  Pontypridd

  18.3

  18.5

  18.3

  Rhondda

  14.8

  15.4

  16.2

  Cynon Valley

  13.4

  13.8

  14.1

  Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney

  9.8

  9.6

  10.7

  Caerphilly

  12.6

  13.0

  13.3

  Islwyn

  4.4

  5.1

  5.3

  Blaeunau Gwent

  4.1

  4.1

  4.1

  Torfaen

  3.4

  3.5

  4.2

  Monmouth

  0.8

  0.9

  1.1

  Newport, East

  3.8

  4.1

  4.1

  Newport, West

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  36W

  Percentage of pupils in maintained secondary schools in year groups 7 to 11 taught Welsh as a first language Wales

  Percentage

  1979–80

  9.7

  1980–81

  10.1

  1981–82

  10.1

  1982–83

  10.2

  1983–84

  10.4

  1984–85

  11.1

  1985–86

  10.7

  1986–87

  11.1

  1987–88

  11.1

  1988–89

  11.3

  1989–90

  11.6

  1990–91

  11.7

  1991–92

  11.7

  1992–93

  12.1

  1993–94

  12.1

  1994–95

  12.2

  1995–96

  12.4

  1996–97

  12.6

  1998–88

  12.8

  1998–99

  13.3

  Constituencies

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Ynys Mön

  44.1

  48.9

  51.3

  Caernarfon

  95.10

  94.7

  94.9

  Conwy

  33.2

  32.9

  34.0

  Clwyd, West

  6.7

  8.1

  8.7

  Vale of Clwyd

  16.7

  17.4

  17.0

  Delyn

  8.1

  8.7

  9.0

  Alyn and Deeside

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Wrexham

  10.5

  10.5

  10.9

  Clwyd, South

  1.6

  2.0

  1.5

  Meirionnydd Nant Conwy

  59.6

  60.0

  65.5

  Mongomeryshire

  14.3

  13.7

  14.7

  Brecon and Radnorshire

  3.4

  3.5

  4.5

  Ceredigion

  47.8

  45.2

  49.0

  Preseli Pembrokeshire

  13.1

  13.8

  15.0

  Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire

  14.8

  15.4

  16.4

  Carmarthen East and Dinefwr

  37.9

  37.0

  38.1

  Llanelli

  16.8

  17.4

  17.8

  Gower

  16.2

  16.4

  17.0

  Swansea, West

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Swansea, East

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Neath

  15.6

  17.1

  17.7

  Aberavon

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Bridgend

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Ogmore

  21.2

  20.1

  19.6

  Vale of Glamorgan

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Cardiff, South and Penarth

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Cardiff, Central

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Cardiff, North

  20.1

  21.1

  17.2

  Cardiff, West

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Pontypridd

  14.1

  13.8

  13.3

  Rhondda

  11.8

  12.8

  13.3

  Cynon Valley

  6.0

  8.9

  12.0

  Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Caerphilly

  11.3

  11.5

  11.8

  Islwyn

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Blaenau Gwent

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Torfaen

  9.4

  9.8

  10.5

  Monmouth

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Newport, East

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Newport, West

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Earnings
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the average percentage
  37W
  growth in average gross weekly earnings of full-time employees on adult rates in Wales for (a) 1997, (b) 1998 and (c) 1999. [136271]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The information requested is in the table.

  Average gross weekly earnings of full-time employees on adult rates

  Year

  Average gross weekly earnings (£)

  Year on year growth (Percentage)

  1996

  313.30

  —

  1997

  330.20

  5.4

  1998

  342.80

  3.8

  1999

  353.60

  3.2

  Source:

  National Statistics, New Earnings Survey

  GDP Growth
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will estimate the percentage GDP growth in Wales in(a) 1998 and (b) 1999. [136206]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  GDP figures are not available for 1999. GDP at basic prices grew by 4 per cent. between 1997 and 1998.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Euro
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will deposit in the Library a copy of the(a) minutes and (b) agenda of the European Community Working Group on Education and the Euro; and when the group will next meet. [134211]

  Ms Jowell
  The minutes and agenda of the European Community working group on Education and the Euro are the property of the European Commission, which provided the secretariat for the meeting. The Commission have taken the view that it would be more appropriate for them to release the documents rather than the Government of a member state. The papers are kept by the Directorate-General for Education and Culture who can make them available on submission of a written application. There are no plans for any further meetings of the group.

  Disabled Students (University Applications)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what percentage of applications made to universities in each of the past five years were made by disabled students. [134900]

  Mr. Wicks
  The latest available data, covering full-time and sandwich undergraduates applying through the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS), are shown in the following table. Some full-time and all part-time students apply outside UCAS.
  38W

  UK domiciled applicants to full-time and sandwich undergraduate courses via UCAS

  Year of entry

  Total applicants

  Of which percentage recording a disability

  1995

  369,701

  4.1

  1996

  364,885

  4.6

  1997

  398,327

  4.6

  1998

  389,588

  4.6

  1999

  388,691

  13.8

  2000

  2388,986

  Not available

  1 Because of a change in the guidance for the reporting of this information to UCAS, the figures between 1999 and 1998 are not directly comparable

  2 Near final total

  University Courses
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many(a) applications for degree courses were received and (b) vacant university spaces there were, in each of the past five years. [134909]

  Mr. Wicks
  The latest available data, showing the number of applications from UK domiciled students via the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS) to institutions in the UK, are shown in the following table. Final figures for 2000 entry will be available in early 2001.

  Applications from UK domiciled students via UCAS to full-time and sandwich first degree courses in UK institutions

  Year of entry

  Number of applications1

  1995

  2,103,141

  1996

  1,661,323

  1997

  1,735,497

  1998

  1,700,939

  1999

  1,752,822

  1 In 1995 each applicant could make up to eight applications; in 1996 and subsequent years each applicant could make up to six applications

  Figures for the number of vacancies are not available centrally. Although universities and colleges inform UCAS throughout the clearing process which courses have vacancies, and these appear in the national press and elsewhere, they do not declare the number of vacancies.

  Learning and Skills Council
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the establishment of the learning and skills councils. [134690]

  Mr. Wicks
  We are making good progress in establishing the Learning and Skills Council (LSC). We have made a number of key senior appointments at both national and local level. These include the National Chair, National Chief Executive, National Council members and the Chairs of the LSC's Adult Learning Committee and Young Peoples Learning Committee. At the local level we have appointed all 47 local Chairs and local Executive Directors. Work continues apace to ensure that the LSC is operational from April 2001 and, to help ensure this, we remain on course to announce local Council members by the end of November and members of the LSC's Adult
  39W
  Learning Committee and Young Peoples Learning Committee by December. The LSC is also working to ensure that its wider staffing requirements are met.

  New Deal (Young People)
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment has been made of the future occupations of young people who complete the New Deal scheme in West Sussex. [134626]

  Ms Jowell

  [holding answer 26 October 2000]: We do not collect detailed statistics on the future occupations of young people when they complete New Deal for individual Units of Delivery and so no comprehensive assessment has been made.

  The flexible design of New Deal aims to tailor provision, in particular training, to meet the aspirations of participants and prepare them for a career in their chosen field. The evidence we do hold indicates that of the 317 young people who have gained sustained unsubsidised employment from New Deal in the West Sussex Unit of Delivery, approximately 3 per cent. moved into managerial/professional occupations, 10 per cent. into clerical/secretarial occupations, 9 per cent. into craft and related occupations, 13 per cent. into personal and protective services, 6 per cent. into sales, 14 per cent. into plant and machinery operation and 45 per cent. into non-specified occupations.

  Religious Freedom
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many letters he has received alleging that there was a threat to religious freedom posed by the EU directive on employment agreed between the Governments of the EU on 17 October. [135068]

  Ms Jowell
  We have received over 12,000 letters following publication of the European Commission's original proposal for this directive. Of these, some 10,500 raised concerns on religious grounds, in particular that the wording of the original draft of the directive posed a threat to religious freedoms. We have now negotiated a final text which, we believe, fully responds to the concerns expressed, and allows member states considerable latitude in implementing its provisions in relation to staff policies of religious organisations. In particular the agreed text allows the UK to protect the right of church schools to give preference to teachers of their faith in line with the provisions of the Schools Standards and Framework Act 1999.

  Class Sizes
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the average class sizes in(a) junior and (b) secondary schools in each local education authority in each of the last three years. [135225]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The information requested on class sizes in England by local education authority area has been placed in the Library. Information on class sizes was recently published in a Statistical Volume 'Statistics of Education—Schools in England 2000'.
  40W
  The latest infant class size data for September 2000 were recently published in a Statistical First Release 'Infant Class Sizes in England 2000' on 1 November, copies of which are available from the Library, or alternatively can be accessed from the Department for Education and Employment statistical website www.dfee.gov.uk/statistics. Figures from this release show that since September 1998, 324,000 five, six and seven-year-olds have benefited from the Government's infant class size initiative. In September 2000, 30,000 children were in classes of 31 or more children, compared to 171,000 in September 1999. This demonstrates that the Government are delivering early their infant class size pledge, which is supported by some £620 million.

  January 2000 saw a fall in the size of the average junior class in England; and a continuing fall in the size of the average primary class, after rising for a decade. The size of the average secondary class nationally, at 22, is still five below the average primary class. Secondary headteachers are receiving an average of £50,000 this year (£60,000 from April 2001) in direct grant to spend as they choose. If this were spent on recruiting teachers, the average secondary class size could be reduced by up to 0.8.

  For information on classes in Wales, I refer the hon. Member to the Secretary of State for Education in Wales.

  New Deal (Costs)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the total cost of the New Deal; and what percentage of this figure is spent on administration. [135232]

  Ms Jowell
  The table shows the total amount spent by the Department for Education and Employment on the Welfare to Work related New Deals, and the percentage of this spent on DfEE administration.

  £ million

  1997–98 outturn

  1998–99 outturn

  1999–2000 estimated outturn

  Total New Deal Spend

  37

  220

  428

  Of which:

  Administration costs

  1.2

  2.4

  3.2

  Administration costs as a percentage

  3.24

  1.09

  0.75

  Child Labour
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the Government's policy on Commission Recommendation 2000/581/CE" pursuant to Convention 182 of the Organisation Internationale du Travail, on banning the worst forms of work for children; which jobs undertaken in the United Kingdom are covered; how many are involved; and if he will make a statement. [135575]

  Ms Jowell
  The Government fully support the International Labour Organisation's Convention No. 182 concerning the prohibition and immediate action for the elimination of the worst forms of child labour and ratified the Convention in March 2000. As part of the implementation of the Convention we are required to identify work which by its nature, or the circumstances
  41W
  under which it is carried out, is considered likely to harm the health, safety and morals of children under the age of 18. We are currently in the process of determining a list of harmful areas of work existing in the UK.

  Work Force Dignity
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the costs involved in maintaining the dignity of the work force in accordance with Article 31 of the draft European Charter of Fundamental Rights. [135572]

  Ms Jowell
  None. The Charter is not legally binding. It is addressed to the EU Institutions, and to member states only when they are implementing Union law (Article 51(1)). It does not establish any new power or task for the Community or the Union or modify powers and tasks defined by the Treaties (Article 51(2)).

  Learning Support Units
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many learning support units are(a) planned and (b) operating in (i) England and Wales, (ii) Nottinghamshire and (iii) Nottingham; and what the time scale is for the establishment of learning support units in each of those areas. [135487]

  Jacqui Smith
  We are planning to have over 1,000 Learning Support Units established in England by 2002. For information about the plans and time scales for Units in Nottinghamshire and City of Nottingham, I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave him on 19 July 2000,Official Report, column 201W.

  The number of Units currently operating in England is around 500 of which 16 are in Nottinghamshire.

  Information about the number of Units in Wales is a matter for the Welsh Assembly.

  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what the curriculum is for pupils in learning support units. [135483]

  Jacqui Smith
  This is for the mainstream and unit staff to determine in the light of pupils' individual needs and circumstances. But unit staff should both liaise closely with the school's teaching staff in setting and marking suitable work, and consult the senior management team in fixing the details of an appropriate curriculum.

  Carers
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps the Government are taking to ensure that people who have responsibilities as carers are not unfairly discriminated against within the labour market. [135801]

  Ms Hodge

  [holding answer 30 October 2000]: The Government recognise the valuable contribution carers make both to their families and society as a whole. We are keen to give them the support they need—whether to balance work with their caring responsibilities or to get back to work when their caring responsibilities end or reduce.
  42W
  For those carers seeking to enter the labour market, Employment Service advisers ensure that they have the same access to all the programmes, such as New Deal, as any other job seeker, and can be granted exemptions from requirements in certain circumstances. Advisers discuss with the individual their circumstances and skills and tailor the help that will best equip them to enter the labour market. The Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA) rules also contain special provision to help carers back into employment.

  New Deal 50 plus takes account of time spent on Invalid Care Allowance when assessing eligibility. My Department has worked in partnership with The Carers National Association to produce a leaflet to explain how New Deal 50 plus can help carers back into work.

  For those carers who are working the new entitlement to take a reasonable time off work to deal with a crisis involving the care of a dependant is a significant new right. The Government believe in a fair and flexible labour market that benefits both employers and employees, working in partnership together. Our Work-Life Balance campaign encourages all employers to introduce policies and practices which benefit the business and help their staff achieve a better balance between work and the rest of their lives. These practices can offer carers a greater choice over where, when and how they work and can help employers retain valued staff.

  Higher Education Institutions
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what criteria he employs when deciding to admit private higher education institutions into the publicly funded sector; and how many such applications have been successful. [135534]

  Mr. Wicks
  Under the Further and Higher Education Act 1992, any private higher education institution seeking designation into the publicly funded sector must have at least 55 per cent. of its full-time equivalent roll capable of being defined as higher education.

  The Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) provides advice to the Secretary of State on applications from private institutions seeking designation as higher education institutions.

  HEFCE funding would require institutions to comply with all the conditions related to receipt of grant, including quality assessment, financial health, governance, audit and accountability standards.

  No private higher education institution has been designated under these provisions so far.

  Disabilities
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what action he is taking to improve the position of those with more than one impairment or complex disabilities. [135840]

  Ms Hodge

  [holding answer 31 October 2000]: We are tackling the social exclusion of disabled people, including those with more than one impairment or who have complex disabilities, in three ways.
  43W
  First, we are continuing to implement the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, and we set up the Disability Rights Commission earlier this year. Secondly, we are working to raise awareness and give advice and information to businesses about the requirements of the DDA through disability awareness campaigns. Thirdly, the Employment Service has a range of specialist employment measures which aim at removing the barriers faced by disabled people. These included the Access to Work, Supported Employment, and Work Preparation Programmes, and the services of the Disability Employment Advisers.

  The New Deal for Disabled People which has been successfully piloted, will be extended nationally. We are also considering the recommendations of the Disability Rights Task Force, in tandem with the implementation of the recently agreed Employment Directive under Article 13.

  Students
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what response he has sent to the Joint Council for Education in the Commonwealth/UK COSA report on international student mobility. [135937]

  Mr. Wicks

  [holding answer 1 November 2000]: We are closely considering the report's recommendations. I am pleased to see that a good deal of what the report suggests is being already implemented in the UK. For example, we place great importance on attracting more international students to the UK. We are actively pursuing this through the Prime Minister's initiative to recruit an additional 75,000 students into further and higher education by 2005.

  Departmental Guidance (Teachers)
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if his Department's guidance to teachers is based on the principle that teachers act in loco parentis. [136261]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Guidance is issued by my Department on the basis of the law, policy and good practice.

  Reading (Phonetic Teaching)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the phonetic approach to the teaching of reading. [136194]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The National Literacy Strategy, which is based on research and inspection evidence of best practice, gives a strong emphasis to the systematic teaching of phonics. As part of the strategy, we have provided all primary schools with practical guidance on the teaching of phonics in the booklet "Progression in Phonics". Since the implementation of the literacy strategy began, there has been a 10 percentage point increase, to 75 per cent., in the percentage of 11-year-olds achieving the standards expected for their age in English.

  Individual Learning Accounts
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the eligibility criteria for students who wish to obtain individual learning accounts. [136180]

  Mr. Wicks

  [holding answer 2 November 2000]: In England, people aged 19 and over can open an Individual Learning Account and benefit from the incentives. There is no upper age limit for account holding. To hold an Individual Learning Account people must be settled in the UK under the Immigration Act 1971, or be European Economic Area nationals working in the UK, or have the right to remain in the UK. Account holders must be resident in England or, if resident outside of England, be ordinarily resident in England (i.e. living abroad temporarily). The only exception to this is for UK armed forces personnel, who qualify for an Individual Learning Account while serving abroad.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the discount arrangements for students who wish to pursue courses of study lasting(a) one, (b) two, (c) three and (d) more than three years. [136182]

  Mr. Wicks

  [holding answer 2 November 2000]: Individual Learning Account incentives are made available to individuals on a rolling year basis. For new account holders their account holding year starts when they first book learning using their account. Under current arrangements the first 1 million account holders to book eligible learning can benefit from a £150 contribution towards their course costs, providing they contribute at least £25 themselves. In second and subsequent years account holders can get a 20 per cent. discount on a wide range of learning up to a maximum of £100 in each year.

  Account holders can also claim an 80 per cent. discount on a limited number of basic IT and maths courses up to a maximum of £200 in each year. The most anyone can claim in any one year is £200. Limits on how much individuals can claim through the incentives in their account holding year ensure that as many individuals as possible benefit from Individual Learning Accounts. If the course costs are split across more than one academic year, account holders will be able to use each annual entitlement to help pay for the learning costs.

  Internet-based Teaching
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of internet-based teaching programmes that can develop literacy and numeracy for post-16 year olds in education. [136540]

  Mr. Wicks
  Improving adult literacy and numeracy skills is a priority for this Government. We have introduced a number of relevant measures and have already announced our intention to allocate £150 million additional expenditure over the period 2001–02 to 2003–04, and will shortly be publishing our national strategy.

  The University for Industry in conjunction with my Department and the Institute of Education in London are currently undertaking research to examine the effectiveness and appropriateness of ICT based learning

  45W
  for people with basic skills needs. The project outcomes will be available early next year and will include a report and a good practice guide.

  Special Educational Needs
  Valerie Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when the Special Educational Needs and Disability in Education Bill will be introduced in Parliament. [137099]

  Mr. Blunkett
  The Government are committed to securing comprehensive civil rights for disabled people. That commitment will be underpinned by a significant investment over the next three years until 2003–04. Over the period 2001–02 to 2003–04 the Government will be investing £220 million through the Schools Access Initiative in England to help improve the accessibility of the school building stock. The spending will be £50 million in 2001–02, rising to £70 million in 2002–03 and £100 million in 2003–04. In addition, over the period 2002–03 to 2003–04, £172 million will be made available to the post-16 sector (Further Education, Higher Education, Adult Education and the Youth Service) to improve accessibility for disabled students and adult learners in England. Provision in Wales and Scotland is a matter for the National Assembly for Wales and the Scottish Executive respectively.

  I can confirm that the Special Educational Needs and Disability Bill will be introduced in Parliament early in the next Session, although it has not proved possible to publish a draft Bill this Session.

  The new legislation will be a significant step forward for disabled pupils, students and adult learners alike.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the progress of the first year of special regional projects on special educational needs; and what plans he has to draw their annual reports to public attention. [136306]

  Jacqui Smith
  The network of eleven SEN regional co-ordination projects have been successfully established and cover the whole of England. A team from the University of Manchester has, since April, been evaluating the projects' work. Their Initial Impressions report is being published this week. The report reveals that there is an enthusiasm for the projects, an optimism that the structures already set up, if maintained and developed, have the potential "to make a difference" to the educational experiences of children and young people with SEN. I am today placing a copy of the published report in the Library of both Houses. Copies are also being made available to everyone involved in the projects and it can also be viewed or downloaded from my Department's SEN Website.

  Access to Work Scheme
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what response he has made to the RADAR report on awareness of the Access to Work Scheme among small employers; and what plans he has to increase(a) their awareness and take-up of the Scheme and (b) the resources available for it. [136301]
  46W
  Ms Jowell
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service agency under its Chief Executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Mark Neal to Mr. Tim Boswell, dated 6 November 2000:
  As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State has asked Leigh Lewis to reply to your question concerning the RADAR report on awareness of the Access to Work scheme among small employers and what plans there are to increase their awareness and take-up of the scheme and the resources available for it. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to Mr Lewis as Chief Executive of the Agency. I am replying on Mr Lewis' behalf.
  I have read the RADAR report and was encouraged to see that 74% of small business respondents to the Jobs Worth Survey reported a relatively high awareness of disability issues. However, I recognise that these respondents also indicated a low level of awareness of the Disability Service, and particularly Access to Work.
  Employment Service invest around £300,000 each year in marketing and publicising its disability services and programmes, including Access to Work, through a variety of media such as external advertising, exhibitions, marketing events and video. A major process review of Access to Work is currently underway to improve the responsiveness of the programme to disabled people and their employers. A new Employment Service Website is due for launch during November and will contain information on all programmes and services provided to disabled people and their employers, including information for individuals and employers on Access to Work.
  In 1999–2000, the Employment Service spent £24.39 million on providing Access to Work support to disabled people in paid employment. During 2000–2001, the Employment Service has £25.6 million to spend on providing Access to Work support.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Training (Disabled People)
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the cost and coverage of vocational residential training for disabled people and its effectiveness in meeting demand for such training. [136303]

  Ms Hodge
  Residential Work Based Learning for Adults offers nationally around 1,200 places for disabled people each year at 13 specialist providers, at a cost of £14.7 million. They provide around 118 courses across a broad range of occupational sectors. In 1999–2000, 46 per cent. of those completing their training entered employment within six months of the end of their course. The type, number and content of the training programmes are regularly reviewed both in the light of demand from applicants and the needs of the labour market. An evaluation of the effectiveness of residential training provision is under way. The results are expected to be published at the end of the year.

  Child Care (Rural Areas)
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what are the latest available figures for the provision of child care places in rural areas in England; and what the figures were for each year since 1995. [136678]
  47W
  Ms Hodge
  The information requested is not available. Statistics on child care places are collected at a local education authority level and are not split between urban and rural areas.

  New Deal (Withdrawal of Benefit)
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many people's benefits have been withdrawn as a result of their refusal to accept any of the options on(a) the New Deal for the Young Unemployed, (b) the New Deal for over 25s and (c) the New Deal for Older Workers. [136317]

  Ms Jowell
  Figures for the period 1 April 1998 to 30 June 2000 show that the following benefit sanctions have been imposed for (i) refusal of a New Deal option, (ii) Leaving an option voluntarily, (iii) misconduct, (iv) failure to attend and (v) other reasons:

  New Deal for young people

  Number of sanctions imposed

  Refusal of an Option

  1,438

  Leaving an Option Voluntarily

  8,781

  Misconduct

  8,108

  Failure to attend

  12,544

  Other reasons

  1,280

  Total

  32,151

  New Deal 25+ pilots

  Number of sanctions imposed

  Refusal of an Option

  40

  Leaving an Option Voluntarily

  233

  Misconduct

  192

  Failure to attend

  1,750

  Other reasons

  7

  Total

  2,222

  As the National New Deal 25+ programme and New Deal 50+ are voluntary programmes, participants are not subject to benefit sanctions.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Sickness Absence
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the progress made by his Department since 1999 in reducing sickness absence; what targets he has agreed with the Cabinet Office; and if he will make a statement. [135494]

  Mr. Morley

  [holding answer 30 October 2000]: The Departmental targets are to reduce sickness absence to 7.8 days per staff year by end-2001 and 6.9 days per staff year by end-2003.

  A range of measures to reduce sickness absence are currently being piloted with a view to roll-out throughout the core-Department. These will put in place Cabinet
  48W
  Office "Best Practice" recommendations to manage and reduce sickness absence. Our Executive Agencies are introducing similar measures.

  Whistleblowers
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what procedures exist in his Department for a civil servant to report actions which(a) are illegal, improper or unethical, (b) are in breach of constitutional convention or a professional code, (c) may involve possible maladministration and (d) are otherwise inconsistent with the civil service code. [136058]

  Mr. Morley

  [holding answer 2 November 2000]: The procedures for reporting such concerns are the same for each issue. Where they cannot be resolved through line management staff may report issues in confidence through someone outside the normal chain of command. For core-MAFF this is the director of Establishments; for Agency staff the appropriate Chief Executive. If, after investigation, a member of staff is not satisfied with a given response a right of appeal exists to the Permanent Secretary and beyond that to the Civil Service Commissioners.

  Wheat
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the average(a) market price and (b) cost of production, per ton of wheat in the last 12 months. [136965]

  Ms Quin
  I will write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Bovine TB
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will publish the results of the road traffic accident survey of badger carcases recommended by the Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB; and if he will make a statement. [137097]

  Ms Quin
  As from today arrangements are in place to test a sample of badger carcases for bovine tuberculosis in the counties of Cornwall, Devon, Dorset, Gloucestershire, Herefordshire, Shropshire and Worcestershire, as recommended by the Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB. Road casualty badgers along with badgers found dead on farms in Krebs trial areas within these counties will be collected and tested. Survey results will be published.

  Cabinet Committee for Rural Affairs
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the Cabinet Committee for Rural Affairs was formed; how many times it has met to date; and on what dates. [136682]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Prime Minister announced on 10 November 1999, Official Report, column 542W, that he had established the Cabinet Committee on Rural Affairs. Regarding details of the meetings, it is established practice, under exemption two of Part II of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, not to disclose information relating to the proceedings of Cabinet Committees.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Sickness Absence
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress made by his Department since 1999 in reducing sickness absence; what targets he has agreed with the Cabinet Office; and if he will make a statement. [135462]

  Mr. Hain

  [holding answer 30 October 2000]: The Cabinet Office prepares an annual report of sickness absence in the Civil Service which includes information for each department. The report for 1999 is being finalised and will be published shortly. Details of the Department's targets for reduced sickness absence for 2001 and 2003 against a baseline of 1998 will be included in its Service Delivery Agreement. This will also be published shortly. In order to meet these targets the Department has streamlined procedures for recording absences, improved monitoring of sickness and pursued more active case management.

  Sierra Leone
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place in the Library the full text of the agreements made between the UK Government and Sierra Leone since 1 April 1997 concerning(a) the training of the Sierra Leone armed services, (b) the police and security services training and (c) any other services provided by Her Majesty's Government. [136675]

  Mr. Hain
  All texts on agreements made between the UK Government and the Government of Sierra Leone on training the Sierra Leone armed services and police will be placed in the Library of the House by the Ministry of Defence and the Department of International Development respectively, except for those where disclosures would be prejudicial to our relations with the Government of Sierra Leone.

  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the future role of the British Council in Sierra Leone. [136645]

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to close down the British Council Country Directorate in Sierra Leone. [136823]

  Mr. Hain
  There are no plans to close British Council's Country Directorate in Sierra Leone. Following its recent strategic review, the council intends to maintain its activities there. These will focus on governance, education and public access information services with Internet access.

  Solomon Islands
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the Government of the Solomon Islands have asked Her Majesty's Government for assistance in relation to recent civil disorder on the islands; and what assistance has been provided. [136631]
  50W
  Mr. Battle
  In early August the Solomon Islands Government asked HMG to provide additional manpower and equipment for the Royal Solomon Islands Police (RSIP). We are considering this request with other key players in the region, in the light of the Townsville Peace Agreement which was agreed on 15 October.

  A World Bank delegation is in Honiara from 31 October until 7 November to assess the economic needs of the Solomon Islands and suggest how donor countries can most effectively provide assistance. Missions from the International Monetary Fund and the Asian Development Bank will make similar visits later this month. We will consider what further help we and our international partners can offer in the light of the recommendations arising from these missions.

  Mercenaries
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects to publish the Green Paper on Mercenary Activity; and if he will make a statement. [135504]

  Mr. Hain
  The Green Paper is in the final stages of preparation. We continue to work towards a publication date of end November, but there may be some slight slippage. I will keep Parliament informed.

  Cuba
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 30 October 2000,Official Report, column 234W, for what reason a period of 15 days elapsed before Ministers were informed of the arrests of British nationals. [136674]

  Mr. Hain
  As I said in my earlier answer of 30 October 2000,Official Report, column 234W, it is not normal practice for FCO officials to inform Ministers whenever a British national is arrested overseas. Due to a printing error, that answer appeared in incorrect form in Hansard. I would also like to take this opportunity to clarify another answer to the hon. Lady of 30 October 2000, Official Report, column 234W. Our Embassy in Havana was informed of the arrest of six British nationals on 9 October and immediately began seeking details and information about their whereabouts. On 12 October they made their first formal request for access. A diplomatic note requesting access was sent to the Cuban Ministry for Foreign Affairs on 16 October.

  Kosovo
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many United Nations personnel have been(a) earmarked for and (b) recruited for the United Nations civilian administration in Kosovo; and how many United Nations personnel earmarked for the United Nations civilian administration in Kosovo have already been deployed. [135418]

  Mr. Hain
  According to the United Nations Secretariat the authorised total for international personnel working in the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) is 1,156. Of that figure, 1,088 are currently deployed and a further 68 have been recruited. In addition, UNMIK employs 4,112 locally engaged staff.
  51W
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the deadline is for setting up an international police task force in Kosovo; and how many of the planned international police officers are deployed in Kosovo. [135419]

  Mr. Hain
  The United Nations International Police (UNIP) is already operating in Kosovo. According to the United Nations Secretariat, 4,129 of the approved total of 4,718 police officers have now deployed to Kosovo.

  Overseas Territories
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what length of time has been given to the Overseas Territories to respond to the KPMG reports. [136676]

  Mr. Battle
  The Overseas Territories covered by the KPMG review, namely the Caribbean Overseas Territories and Bermuda, have agreed to submit written responses to the recommendations in the reports by 15 January 2001.

  ASSIST Programme
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Assistance to Support Stability with In-Service Training programme; and what changes to the programme are planned. [137177]

  Mr. Vaz
  The ASSIST programme was established on 1 April 1998 to replace the UK Military Training Assistance Scheme (UKMTAS), with the main purpose of refocusing support to the Government's priority of promoting respect for human rights and good governance.

  Nigeria
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the extent of recent violence in Nigeria; and if he will make a statement. [136765]

  Mr. Hain
  I was saddened to hear of the serious outbreak of rioting in Lagos on 15–18 October. At least 200 people were killed, and over 16,000 fled their homes.

  The violence was predominantly between the Yoruba and Hausa communities. Its immediate cause remains unclear. The Oodua Peoples Congress, a militant Yoruba organisation, were heavily involved.

  The security forces brought the situation under control, and made many arrests.

  I deplore all such incidents. I urge the communities involved to resolve their differences through dialogue not violence.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Arts Venues (Small Towns)
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what recent assessment he has made of the future viability of arts centres and venues for live theatre and music in small towns. [135349]
  52W
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Arts centres are undoubtedly important for the local communities they serve, especially where access to mainstream venues such as theatres and concert halls is difficult. It is for that reason we believe decisions on their future viability and funding needs are best taken locally by the regional arts boards and local authorities. In a number of cases they will also be considered as part of the Arts Council's theatre review.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Healey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on the measures he is taking to ensure that former coalfield areas gain a fair share of national lottery funding, and the effectiveness of those measures to date. [135352]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The Government would like to see all parts of the country receiving a fair share of lottery funding. My Department and lottery distributors commissioned research into the impact of the lottery on the coalfields and have established a joint coalfields action group to take forward the report's recommendations. Early indications are that the rate of awards to coalfields areas has increased since Government lottery reforms came into force in August 1998.

  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much money has been raised for good causes by the National Lottery since its inception. [135353]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  Up to the end of September this year, the National Lottery had raised £9.96 billion for good causes.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps he is taking to ensure that the arrangements for auditing organisations in receipt of National Lottery grants are robust. [135909]

  Kate Hoey
  Distribution of National Lottery grants is a matter for 15 National Lottery distributing bodies. The Secretary of State's directions to these bodies (or, in the case of bodies operating solely in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, the directions from the devolved Administrations) require them to establish procedures which ensure lottery resources are being used for the purposes for which grants were given and that the schemes supported represent value for money; that projects are delivering the benefits identified on the application form in accordance with specified financial arrangements; and that assets purchased are being used for the purpose for which they were intended. The distributing bodies are required to set out their performance on this in their annual reports.

  My Department requires distributing bodies' accounting officers to submit a statement, verified by the National Audit Office (or equivalent) which states that their systems (including their systems for monitoring arrangements as set out above) are adequate for the distribution of lottery funds before they are permitted to draw down such funds. Other steps include an annual assurance exercise which examines distributors' compliance with their directions.

  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list the transport vehicles to which the Heritage Lottery Fund has given
  53W
  financial support since its foundation; how many such vehicles are on static display only; and how many such vehicles are in use. [136275]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The information requested is held by the Heritage Lottery Fund and I have asked for it to be provided. I will write to my hon. Friend when the information is available and place copies in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what guidelines he has issued to the National Lottery Commission in respect of criteria for awarding the licence to run the National Lottery. [136394]

  Kate Hoey
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's directions to the National Lottery Commission were placed in the Libraries of the House on 4 February 2000.

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what criteria there are for fitness to be granted the licence to run the National Lottery, with particular reference to the personal character and past conduct of bidders. [136244]

  Kate Hoey
  Decisions on fitness and propriety of the National Lottery operator are a matter for the National Lottery Commission. Section 4(1)(a) of the National Lottery etc. Act 1993 (as amended) requires the Commission to secure that the National Lottery is run, and every lottery that forms part of it is promoted with all due propriety

  Section 5(5) of the Act further provides that
  In determining whether to grant [a licence to operate the National Lottery] the Commission may consider—

  (a) whether any person who appears to it to be likely to manage the business or any of the business of running the National Lottery under the licence is a fit and proper person to do so, and

  (b) whether any person who appears to it to be likely to be a person for whose benefit that business would be carried on is a fit and proper person to benefit from it.

  Detailed criteria are a matter for the Commission.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what kind of facilities will be built in schools under the New Opportunities Fund's schools initiative; and if he will make a statement. [136297]

  Kate Hoey
  Subject to responses to the consultation paper, published today, we would like this initiative to focus primarily on refurbishing existing, and building new, indoor and outdoor sports facilities for schools and community use. The types of facilities we envisage being funded include playing fields, swimming pools, tennis courts, indoor nets, astropitches and facilities for outdoor adventure. This extra money would provide a wider range and greater number of facilities than would be possible through central Government funding alone.

  Football (Television Coverage)
  Mrs. Fiona Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will take steps to ensure access to premiership and national football matches through terrestrial television channels. [135354]
  54W
  Janet Anderson
  The Government only intervene in the sports broadcasting market to ensure that all television licence holders have "free to air" access (i.e. on BBC, the ITV Network or Channel 4) to those sporting occasions which have true national resonance; known as "listed events". The list was last revised and extended in 1998 and will be kept under review.

  As far as national team football is concerned, the entire finals tournaments of both the World Cup and European Championships are listed. Premier League football is not listed because, while the Premiership is of great interest to football fans, it does not strike a chord with the general viewer in the same way as the events which are listed.

  Young Musicians
  Ms Keeble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what his policy is for improving opportunities for young musicians. [135355]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Ensuring all children have access to music-making opportunities is a key priority for my Department. We are working closely with partners on a range of policies to deliver this, including the Department for Education and Employment's £270 million Music Standards Fund and the £30 million Arts Council of England Lottery funding of the National Foundation for Youth Music.

  Richmond Park (Traffic Management)
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what views he has expressed to the Royal Parks Agency concerning the options for traffic management in Richmond park. [135356]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  None. Traffic management in the Royal Parks is an operational matter which is delegated to the Royal Parks Agency. However, I am aware of the sensitivity of the issue among local people, as I know is the agency.

  Library Plans
  Mrs. Ann Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment he has made of the latest annual library plans submitted to his Department. [135357]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  Analysis of the plans submitted at the end of September is currently taking place. Individual and confidential feedback will be given to each of the 149 library authorities in December, and a general appraisal of all the plans will be published early in 2001.

  Press Complaints Commission
  Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will take steps to put the Press Complaints Commission on a statutory basis. [135358]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The Government have no plans to put the Press Complaints Commission on a statutory basis. I believe that an effective system of self-regulation is far preferable to any statutory system.

  Broadcasting (Wales)
  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations he has received about the impact of the change of ownership of HTV on broadcasting in Wales. [135359]

  Janet Anderson
  I have received no such representations as of 3 November. Changes of ownership in media companies are matters for the competition authorities and the Independent Television Commission.

  Olympic Games
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has to provide financial support for British contenders for the next Olympic games. [135360]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  Financial support for elite UK athletes is provided through the World Class Performance Programme. The UK programme will provide at least £100 million over the next four years to help British competitors prepare for the 2002 Commonwealth Games and the Athens Olympics in 2004.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many Olympic athletes have received sponsorship from the New Opportunities Fund. [134706]

  Kate Hoey
  No Olympic athletes have received sponsorship from the New Opportunities Fund because the NOF programmes cover health, education and environment projects.

  National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many grants have been awarded by the National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts; and what proportion of funding has been allocated to(a) science, (b) technology and (c) the arts. [135361]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  NESTA does not invest according to rigid boundaries between science, technology and the arts, and many of the individuals and projects which it has so far supported do not fall into exact distinctions between these disciplines. However, I can confirm that £500,000 of the £3 million so far awarded, has been given to projects predominantly related to science, £600,000 has been spent on projects which are mainly concerned with engineering and technological innovation, and awards principally focusing on the arts total £1.9 million. Further awards in all three areas will be announced by NESTA in the near future. I am asking the Chief Executive of NESTA to write to my hon. Friend as soon as possible with details of each award made so far and shall ensure that a copy of the letter is placed in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament.

  Millennium Dome
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has for the future of the Dome. [135362]
  56W
  Janet Anderson
  The Government are currently in discussion with Legacy plc, in relation to Legacy's proposal for a high-technology business campus at the Greenwich site. The Legacy proposal is currently being analysed by the competition team in advance of any decision on preferred bidder status. We hope to make an announcement in due course. The Government are determined to get the best deal for the regeneration of East London.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many of the people employed in the Millennium Dome are(a) women, (b) from an ethnic minority and (c) both. [134585]

  Janet Anderson
  The New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) has advised that, of the 1,398 people it directly employs, 647 (46 per cent.) are women. Using information from NMEC's equal opportunities monitoring process, 257 (18 per cent.) of the 1,398 employees are from ethnic minorities; 815 (58 per cent.) are white and 326 (24 per cent.) withheld the necessary information. Of the total number of women employed directly by NMEC, 125 (20 per cent.) are from ethnic minorities, 380 (59 per cent.) are white and 142 (21 per cent.) withheld the necessary information.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many letters of complaint he has received about expenditure on the Millennium Dome. [134583]

  Janet Anderson
  Since 1 May 1997 until 16 October 2000, my Department had received a total of 7,997 letters from members of the public and 1,246 ministerial cases relating to Millennium issues. Correspondence is not logged according to issues covered. Identifying those letters which relate specifically to complaints about expenditure on the Millennium Dome can therefore be undertaken only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many staff are employed in the Millennium Dome. [134584]

  Janet Anderson
  The New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) has advised that it directly employs 1,398 people.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions he has had with the Fraud Squad regarding Millennium Dome contracts; and if he will make a statement. [134588]

  Janet Anderson

  [holding answer 26 October 2000]: Neither my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State nor I have had any such discussions. The New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) has advised that, following third-party allegations about the award of certain contracts to a design company, David James, Executive Chair of NMEC, notified the Met's CID. Prior to these allegations David James had, on taking office, initiated a review of past contractual arrangements entered into by NMEC. This study, together with the CID investigation, are on-going and it would not therefore be appropriate for me to comment at this stage. I will, however, report to the House as soon as the investigation is completed.
  57W
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many contracts, for what purposes, and of what aggregate value, were awarded to At Work Ltd. by the New Millennium Experience Company; and if he will make a statement. [135413]

  Janet Anderson

  [holding answer 30 October 2000]: I have been advised by the New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) that At Work Ltd. were awarded three contracts by NMEC relating to the Living Island, Shared Ground and Work and Learning exhibit zones. All the contracts were concerned with design development (interior and exterior) for each of the zones in question. The aggregate value of these contracts was £4.5 million net of VAT.

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment was made(a) by and (b) for the Government prior to the final decision to locate the Dome at Greenwich of the effects on visitor numbers of locating the Dome there. [136240]

  Janet Anderson
  The decision to locate the Millennium Dome at the Greenwich site was taken by the Millennium Commission in 1996.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will write to the hon. Member in his capacity as chairman of the Millennium Commission with details of the commission's decision and copies of that reply will be placed in the Libraries of the House

  Football Facilities
  Mr. Caplin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps he is taking to increase investment in grass roots football facilities. [135363]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister launched the Football Foundation on 25 July. The foundation is a partnership between Sport England, the Football Association and the FA Premier League, all of which are contributing to its income.

  75 per cent. of the foundation's income will be used to fund the development of grass roots football in England, including the provision of high quality facilities. The foundation is expected to distribute grass roots funding of £18 million in its first year of operation.

  Picketts Lane Athletics Stadium
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when he expects the contract for the new Picketts Lane athletics stadium to be signed. [135364]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The Lee Valley Stadium project is still at the pre-design feasibility stage. Contracts for the construction of the new stadium can only be concluded once the design stage has been completed.

  Theatre Funding
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps he is taking to ensure that there are sufficient resources available for the development of smaller theatres and theatre groups. [135348]
  58W
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The Arts Council's current review of regional theatre in its wildest and most inclusive sense, which it is undertaking in collaboration with the Regional Arts Boards and other interested parties, will be addressing these concerns when deciding how to allocate the additional funding it received from the recent spending review.

  Seaside Resorts (North Yorkshire)
  Mr. Quinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps his Department is taking to support North Yorkshire's seaside resorts. [135351]

  Janet Anderson
  During my seaside 2000 tour I visited both Scarborough and Whitby and also launched the Yorkshire Coastal Tourism Initiative. I also announced a 4-point plan for England's seaside resorts, including measures to improve their low levels of lottery funding and to support bids for European regeneration money. Local authorities and regional bodies can play a major role in making progress in those areas and DCMS will continue to support them and achieve good results for resorts, including those in Yorkshire, such as we did in the new objective 2 and assisted area maps and in the latest SRB round.

  Tennis
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment he has made of the opportunities for pupils in maintained schools to learn to play tennis. [134370]

  Kate Hoey
  Government policy is to encourage participation in a wide range of sports in schools. As part of the Government's Sports Strategy the first phase of the School Sports Coordinators programme has recently been established and will provide further opportunities for children in primary and secondary schools in deprived areas to participate in a range of sports, including tennis. In addition, the Lawn Tennis Association has a number of initiatives geared towards promoting tennis in schools, including the Starter Tennis Scheme, the Club-School Link Programme, and the Tennis Awards scheme.

  UK Sports Institute
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on the intended opening date of the UK Sports Institute. [134642]

  Kate Hoey
  Recruitment of the key staff of the UKSI Central Services team has been completed. From November 2000, sports will have access to the technical, operational and programme support provided through the UKSI Central Services Team.

  The UKSI is also made up of a network of institutes operated by the home country sports councils. The establishment of the English Institute of Sport of the UKSI is on-going. The Badminton Centre in Milton Keynes, the Aquatics Centre and Velodrome in Manchester and the Ice-Centre in Nottingham are already available to athletes. In May/June 2000, the water-based hockey pitches in Birmingham and Cannock were among the first completed new projects. Over £50 million of new lottery funding has been committed by Sport England to date for additional facilities for the English network. It is

  59W
  expected that the majority of the remaining lottery applications, representing over £60 million of further investment in network facilities in England, will be made in the next six months. Once the full building programme has been completed, there will be over 80 facilities that go to make up the English Institute of Sport network.

  In addition, the UKSI Scottish Institute of Sport, funded by sportscotland, has been established and operating for 18 months and The Sports Council for Wales has been operating and developing UKSI Cymru for sometime. Both have been providing a range of services direct to athletes including technical training and support, conditioning guidance and supervision, preventive and reactive sports medical support and sports science. The Sports Council for Northern Ireland has identified the University of Ulster as their preferred partner to develop in partnership the UKSI network centre for Northern Ireland. Initial principles of agreement have been signed by both parties and work is under way to identify the most appropriate format to operate the network centre.

  I am arranging for copies of the UKSI Quarterly Update report for August 2000—produced by UK Sport—to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses to provide further information on progress of the UK Sports Institute.

  Photography
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what percentage of arts lottery funding has been awarded to projects primarily concerned with photography as an art form. [134519]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The number of arts lottery awards made to projects primarily concerned with photography is, according to figures supplied by the Arts Council, 24, totalling some £4,306,000. This represents 0.27 per cent. of the total awards and 0.32 per cent. of the total value of awards made by the Arts Council. Many more Arts Council awards will have gone to projects which also support photography through exhibitions and touring but which are not specifically for photography.

  Historic Building Grants
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many historic building grants were awarded in the last five years; and what was the average cost of these grants. [135207]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Grants for historic buildings and monuments are provided by English Heritage (EH) and the Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF). The information requested is provided for both of these organisations. It should be noted that the HLF's remit covers the whole of the UK, where as EH covers England only.

  Since financial year 1995–96 EH have offered the following numbers of grants:

  Historic Buildings and Monuments Grants:

  Total Offered: £50,974,000

  Number of Cases: 1,025

  Average Grant: £49,731

  This includes secular buildings and monuments.
  60W
  Church Grants:

  Total Offered: £45,717,000

  Number of Cases: 1,317

  Average Grant: £34,713

  This includes churches and other places of worship.

  Cathedral Grants:

  Total Offered: £15,000,000

  The actual number of cases of grants offered to cathedrals are not held centrally by English Heritage therefore we are unable to give an average grant figure.

  Since 1995 the HLF have awarded the following number of grants:

  Historic Building and Sites:

  Total Awarded: £436,382,000

  Number of cases: 1,658

  Average Grant: £263,000

  This includes secular buildings, places of worship and monuments.

  Wembley National Stadium Ltd.
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) when Wembley National Stadium Ltd. will repay £20 million of National Lottery funds to Sport England; [135712]

  (2) what arrangements have been agreed for the repayment of £20 million of National Lottery funding by Wembley National Stadium Ltd. to Sport England. [135710]

  Kate Hoey
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 30 October 2000,Official Report, column 327W to the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth).

  BBC Digital Services
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make it his policy to allow BBC licence payers a discount if they are unable to receive BBC digital services; and if he will make a statement. [135907]

  Janet Anderson
  No. In February this year, in announcing its proposals for the future funding of the BBC, the Government made clear that they had opted for a unified television licence fee covering all the BBC's services, rather than differential fees for analogue and digital viewers. The Government estimate that the switch over to digital television will take place this decade, so the time has come to recognise that digital will soon be the norm.

  BBC News
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations he has received regarding the decision of the BBC to move its main evening news from 9 pm to 10 pm; and what discussions he has had with the director-general of the BBC on the subject. [136403]

  Janet Anderson
  We have received 45 representations on the BBC's decision to reschedule the nine o'clock news. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State
  61W
  expressed his misgivings about the BBC's decision when he met the chairman and director-general of the BBC to discuss a range of topics on 6 October.

  Synchronised Swimming
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the training facilities available for synchronised swimming. [136398]

  Kate Hoey
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 30 October 2000,Official Report, column 325W.

  Marine Archaeology
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what progress has been made since his meeting in May with the hon. Members for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara) and Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) on the protection of sites of marine archaeological interest. [135329]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The Government remain fully committed to securing, at the earliest opportunity, the necessary legislation to provide English Heritage with powers below the mean low water mark. This will place underwater archaeology on the same footing as land based archaeology, allowing access to English Heritage grant funds and support which are currently not available to underwater archaeological work.

  The Department for Culture, Media and Sport is working on placing, during the current financial year, a number of wreck marker buoys and information signs at or near to sites which are designated under the Protection of Wrecks Act 1973. We are continuing to support, through the Heritage Grant Fund, a maritime archaeological project undertaken by the Hampshire and Wight Trust and the archaeological diving training programme provided by the Nautical Archaeological Society.

  Playing Fields
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many new(a) public playing fields and (b) school playing fields have been funded by the National Lottery. [136769]

  Kate Hoey
  Specific information on lottery funding directed to both new public and school playing fields is not available. However, the Sports Lottery Fund has made 35 awards totalling nearly £17.6 million for projects creating both new and upgrading existing public playing fields, so they may be brought back into use. The Sports Lottery Fund has also made 15 awards totalling nearly £14 million for creating both new, and upgrading school playing fields.

  Dr. Tonge

  To ask the Secretary of. State for Culture, Media and Sport what progress has been made in the development of a national register of playing fields. [136755]

  Kate Hoey
  The proposals for a national register of recreational land were originally put forward during the preparation of the Playing Pitch Strategy by the GB Sports Council, the National Playing Fields Association and the 62W
  Central Council for Physical Recreation in 1989. The objectives of the register from the outset were; to monitor change in the recreational land resource; to assist in policy development at the local and national level; to provide information to the public. This proved to be an extensive task, surveying over 70,000 individual pitches on more than 23,000 sites across England. An independent evaluation of the register in 1994 found a number of shortcomings with the data. These shortcomings were due to a number of factors including the voluntary nature of the project, with owner and managers of sites under no obligation to provide data, and many refusing to co-operate.

  A review of the effectiveness of the register in 1998 indicated that the likelihood of achieving and maintaining a comprehensive, accurate, up-to-date national inventory of playing pitches was remote. Sport England, with the support of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the National Playing Fields Association, and the Central Council of Physical Recreation, is currently working with the Local Government Association on a suitable model of the register which can be used by local authorities to undertake assessments of playing field need and provision in their area.

  National Lottery Commission
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many newsagents have made representation to his Department expressing concern about recent actions of the National Lottery Commission. [135335]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  I have received a range of representations about the award of the next National Lottery licence, including a few from newsagents. I have given Lord Burns, with the other Commissioners, a clear remit to bring the current process to a timely and fair conclusion and I have every confidence in their ability to do so.

PRIME MINISTER

  Public Service Agreements
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister which Cabinet committees monitor public service agreements; and if he will make a statement. [134832]

  The Prime Minister
  The Committee on Public Services and Public Expenditure (PSX) has its terms of reference to monitor progress against public service agreements, to review public expenditure allocations and make recommendations to the Cabinet.

  Environmental Policies
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the meetings (1) he has held with environmental non-governmental groups in 2000 to discuss the future of environment policy; [135434]
  63W
  (2) by date and organisation he has held with business organisations or companies since 1 January to discuss the future of environment policy. [135433]

  The Prime Minister
  I have meetings with a wide range of organisations and individuals. As with previous Administrations, it is not my practice to provide details of all such meetings.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister what account he took of comments posted on the No. 10 web site, at your say/environment in preparation of his speech to the Joint Green Alliance/CBI partnership meeting on environmental policies on 24 October. [135539]

  The Prime Minister
  I am well aware of the range of opinion on these issues, which I reflected in my speech.

  Whistleblowers
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister what procedures exist in his Department for a civil servant to report actions which(a) are illegal, improper, or unethical, (b) are in breach of constitutional convention or a professional code, (c) may involve possible maladministration and (d) are otherwise inconsistent with the Civil Service Code. [135492]

  The Prime Minister
  Civil servants in my Department are encouraged to report such actions to their line manager in the first instance. If for any reason an individual feels unable to do this or if the matter cannot be resolved in the management line, he/she may report such actions to one of two Designated Officers. Alternatively, he/she may report the matter to the independent Civil Service Commissioners, either directly or through the Permanent Secretary.

  Scottish Civil Service
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his responsibilities for the Scottish Civil Service and its adherence to the Civil Service Code. [135946]

  The Prime Minister

  [holding answer 31 October 2000]: Under the terms of the Scotland Act 1998, civil servants working in the Scottish Executive are members of the Home Civil Service and subject to the requirements of the Civil Service Code.

  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will refer to the Cabinet Secretary the proposals of the First Minister, the hon. Member for Central Fife (Mr. McLeish) in relation to privileged access for Labour MSPs to civil servants of the Scottish Executive and compliance with the Civil Service Code. [135945]

  The Prime Minister

  [holding answer 31 October 2000]: The First Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Central Fife (Mr. McLeish) has made his position clear in the following terms:
  Any talk of politicising the civil service in Scotland is nonsense. Impartiality is at the heart of everything the Civil Service has to offer and I will not let it be compromised in any shape or form.
  64W
  Of course there is a need for party political support and advice but that is a role for others—not the Civil Service.
  The Political Unit I am proposing will be entirely staffed by Labour movement staff with a range of liaison functions. It will be distinct from the Policy Unit which will continue to be staffed by Special Advisers and career civil servants.
  Let us also be clear that in accordance with well established practice MSPs of all parties have access to briefing from civil servants, usually on the basis that they support Ministers at meetings arranged for the purpose. This mechanism provides a valuable opportunity for MSPs to discuss issues of concern to their constituents with those closest to the detail of a particular policy and I intend that more should be made of it.

  I see no reason for referring the matter to the Secretary of the Cabinet.

  Definition of Superpower and Superstate
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Prime Minister what reasons underlie his policy of(a) favouring the creation of a European superpower and (b) not favouring the creation of a European superstate. [136229]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 1 November 2000,Official Report, column 509W.

  Ministerial Conduct
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will provide guidance to cabinet ministers about(a) the declaration of loans received for house purchases and (b) the receipt of donations from hon. Members. [136228]

  The Prime Minister
  Section 9 of the Ministerial Code provides guidance to Ministers on the handling of private interests.

  Fuel Crisis
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister what consultations he has had with drivers' trade unions about the possible use of Army drivers and tankers for transporting oil in the event of fuel supply stoppages. [136772]

  The Prime Minister
  In the past few weeks, Ministers in various Departments have held a number of meetings with representatives of organisations affected by the protests, including the trade unions.

PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Mr. Raymond Hale
  Dr. Naysmith
  To ask the President of the Council for what reason the petition by Mr. Raymond Hale of the University of Bristol, submitted to the Privy Council on 10 September 1999, has not received a response; and if she will make a statement. [136010]

  Mrs. Beckett
  Since the petition was received, officials from my Department have been pursuing it with Bristol University and with Mr. Hale. My officials wrote to Mr. Hale on 20 October 2000 to say that they would do all they could to secure a decision on his Petition by the end of November 2000.

  Appointments Council
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the President of the Council what the total budget is for the House of Lords Appointments Commission in the current financial year. [136038]

  Mrs. Beckett
  I understand that the Commission has provisionally estimated its budget for the current financial year at £250,000. The Commission will be taking into account the need for any changes in the light of experience and feedback it receives from the public and others.

CABINET OFFICE

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, pursuant to her answer of 5 June 2000,Official Report, column 102W, on Special Advisers, if she will list the destination of each of the overseas visits undertaken by departmental or non-departmental special advisers. [135255]

  Mr. Stringer
  During the financial year 1999–2000, Special Advisers accompanied the Minister for the Cabinet Office or her predecessor to Paris, Rome, Brussels, Lisbon and New York. In addition, the UK Anti-Drugs Co-ordinator and his deputy visited Australia, Lisbon (twice), Belgium, Vienna and Turkey.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Departmental Policies
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will set out, including statistical information relating as directly as possible to the constituency, the effect on the Manchester, Gorton constituency of her Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [136176]

  Jane Kennedy
  The policies developed by this Department generally relate to England and Wales as a whole and it is therefore not possible to say what the specific impact is on the Manchester, Gorton constituency. However, Manchester, Gorton is within the Manchester Magistrates' Courts Committee (MCC) area and will be part of the Greater Manchester MCC that comes into effect on 1 April 2001. A new 18-courtroom building is to be provided by Manchester City Council under a PH contract. The Lord Chancellor's Department will be providing PH Credits to the City Council to the value of approximately £45 million, which is 70 per cent. of the net present value of the scheme. Also, since 1997, £78,804 has been provided by the Lord Chancellor's Department to improve facilities available at the Manchester Magistrates' Court.

  In addition, the Manchester Community Legal Service Partnership (CLSP), which covers Manchester, Gorton constituency, is one of 143 CLSPs throughout England and Wales. Throughout the Manchester, Gorton constituency, 12 agencies have been awarded contracts with the Legal Services Commission.

HEALTH

  Waiting Lists
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the average change in waiting times for in-patient treatment for NHS patients in each year since May 1997. [135012]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Weeks

  As at 31 March

  Average time (median) waited by those on the list1

  1997

  13.2

  1998

  14.8

  1999

  12.8

  2000

  12.9

  31 August 200022

  12.9

  1 This is the published notice, which refers to waiting list for elective 2 Latest available figure data used in the monthly statistical press the average time waited by those on the admission at a particular date

  2 Latest available figure

  The National Health Service Plan states that the maximum wait for in-patient treatment will be cut from 18 months now to six months by 2005. Urgent cases will continue to be treated much faster in accordance with clinical need. As a result of delivering this policy, we would expect the average time that patients have been waiting for in-patient treatment to fall from three months to seven weeks by 2005.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people in East Sussex were on(a) an in-patient and (b) an out-patient waiting list on (i) 1 May 1997 and (ii) the latest date for which figures are available. [135326]

  Mr. Denham

  [holding answer 30 October 2000]: The information requested is given in the table.

  East Sussex, Brighton and Hove health authority1

  Patients waiting for elective admission

  Outpatient over 13 week waiters2

  31 March 19973

  20,035

  Data not collected

  Latest date

  418,460

  57,562

  1 HA waiting lists and times data have been collected on a responsible population basis since April 1999. Prior to this, data were collected on the basis of a resident population.

  2 Information is not collected on the total number of patients waiting for an out-patient appointment. The table gives information on the number of patients not yet seen for first out-patient appointment who had been waiting 13 weeks or over following referral by a GP.

  3 The baseline is given as 31 March 1997, as data were not collected at 31 May 1997.

  4 31 August 2000

  5 30 June 2000

  Single Currency (NHS Trusts)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the cost to NHS trusts of preparing for the euro. [134774]

  Mr. Denham
  None.

  Private Medical Insurance
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he last met representatives of the private medical insurance industry. [134786]

  Ms Stuart
  During the last two years I have met representatives of the private medical insurance industry several times. The last meeting took place in March this year. There is also regular on-going dialogue with representatives from individual companies at official level. The latest meeting took place on 26 October this year.

  Heart Surgery
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average change in waiting times for heart surgery has been since May 1997. [134742]

  Mr. Denham
  The average time patients waited for an operation involving the heart fell from 15 weeks at March 1997 to 14 weeks at December 1999 (latest data available).1

  The National Service Framework sets out a 10-year programme to transform the treatment of people with heart disease. An extra £230 million a year is being invested in heart disease services by 2004, backed up by an extra £120 million spending on equipment. The NSF pledge to carry out 3,000 more heart operations by 2002 has now been boosted by a further £10 million for another 3,000 procedures. This programme of expansion means that the maximum waiting time for routine cardiac surgery will fall to six months by 2005 and to three months by 2008.
  1 HES data relate to the average time waited by patients for elective admission during particular periods. Unlike published waiting list statistics, this is not adjusted for self-deferrals or periods of medical/social suspension. The answer uses HES data, although Korner data are usually used to answer average waiting times questions. However, Korner data are collected by consultant speciality only, and it is not possible to identify data relating specifically to heart surgery.

  Medicine Rationing
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his policy is on rationing of medicines in the National Health Service. [134954]

  Mr. Denham
  With the exception of the small number of medicines covered by schedules 10 and 11 of the general practitioner terms of service, and guided by any locally determined policies, National Health Service prescribers are free to prescribe any available medicines. In deciding on the appropriate treatment for individual patients they should take account of any local or national guidance, in particular any relevant recommendations on clinical and cost-effectiveness from the National Institute for Clinical Excellence.

  Respite Care
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the availability of respite care to the carers of children with learning difficulties; and if he will make a statement. [135536]
  68W
  Mr. Hutton
  There has been no specific survey of how many learning-disabled children there are; the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys (OPCS) surveys in 1989 estimated that there were 327,000 disabled children under 16 in England and Wales. This estimate represents 3.2 per cent. of the population and is lower than other estimates. It is generally accepted that this estimate although dated, remains valid.

  OPCS has also estimated that two thirds of the 110,000 most severely disabled children did not receive any support services. We can also estimate that two thirds of the most disabled 16 and 17-year-olds will receive no service—that gives a figure of about 11,500.

  Of the families covered in the OPCS private households survey, only a third of the children in the 5–15 age group or their families had received a domiciliary service in the previous year, and although the rate rose to almost four-fifths among the children under five, this was mainly attributable to health visiting.

  The inspection by the Social Services Inspectorate of services to disabled children and their families, published in 1998, identified a heavy demand for services in all local authorities.

  The Learning Disability Strategy, to be published early next year, will address the needs of learning-disabled people of all ages. Our consultation with experts in the field and service users has emphasised the importance of increased family support.

  On 27 September, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced that we will increase the amount of money put aside specifically to support carers in England through the Carers Special Grant from £50 million this year to £70 million in 2001–02, £85 million in 2002–03 and £100 million in 2003–04.

  This funding will more than double from £120 million this year to £290 million by 2003–04. This is an unprecedented investment in the future of some of the most vulnerable children in our country. I expect that at least £15 million of next year's special grant will be dedicated to the new priority area: disabled children. This money will be spent on a wide range of services, including both home based and respite care.

  Psychotropic Medication
  Dr. Naysmith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he collates about the level of prescribing of psychotropic medication in residential homes; and what guidance he issues to doctors on this subject. [136015]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information on the level of psychotropic medication in residential homes is not available. The "Prescription Cost Analysis: England 1999", which is available in the Library, shows that in 1999, 5.6 million prescription items were dispensed in the community in England for drugs used in psychoses and related disorders. Drugs used in psychoses and related disorders are contained within the British National Formulary section 4.2.

  The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) has a continuing rollover work programme appraising drugs and interventions. We are considering a number of drugs for 2000 to 2001 for NICE, and an announcement will be made shortly.
  69W
  Dr. Naysmith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will issue guidance to doctors about alternatives to the prescribing of psychotropic medication for stress and minor illness. [135990]

  Mr. Hutton
  The National Institute for Clinical Excellence work programme includes the development of a guideline on the management of depression in the community. This will offer guidance on drug treatments and psychological therapies.

  The recently published National Health Service Plan provides a model of mental health services which requires radical shifts in the current range of provision. An investment of over £300 million will fast forward the Mental Health National Service Framework and provide real choices and alternatives for service users. An example is the investment in primary care workers who will promote a range of options in the care and treatment of stress and minor illness.

  NHS Dental Treatment
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many dentists were registered to treat NHS patients in each year from 1992 to 1999(a) by parliamentary constituency, (b) in Greater London and (c) in England and Wales; [135780]

  (2) what was the average number of patients registered with an NHS dentist in each year from 1992 to 1999 (a) by constituency, (b) in Greater London and (c) in England and Wales. [135781]

  Mr. Hutton
  The number of principal dentists on a health authority (HA) list (Family Health Services Authority (FHSA) for 1992 to 1995) in the General Dental Services at 30 September in each of the years 1992 to 1999 is shown in tables by(a) health authority (b) in Greater London, defined by HAs indicated and (c) in England and Wales. The tables have been placed in the Library.

  The average number of patients registered with a principal dentist in the General Dental Services at 30 September in each of the years 1992 to 1999 is shown in tables by (a) health authority (b) in Greater London, defined by HAs indicated and (c) in England and Wales. This has been obtained by dividing the number of registrations by the number of principal dentists on a HA list.

  Registration numbers from December 1997 are affected by the shortening of the registration period to 15 months. Previously the period was 24 months for adults, while children's registrations expired at the end of the following calendar year if the patient had not visited their dentist in the meantime. Registration numbers between 1992 and 1999 were also affected by administration changes.

  Data are not available by parliamentary constituency.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on dental services(a) nationally and (b) in Coventry South. [136590]

  Mr. Hutton
  On 28 September 1999, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced that within two years there would be access to NHS dentistry for everyone who wants it via NHS Direct. The dental strategy,70W
  "Modernising NHS Dentistry—Implementing the NHS Plan", published on 19 September 2000, shows how that pledge can be met. The strategy focuses on the areas of access, quality and oral health and is supported by £100 million new funding. Responsibility for dentistry is devolved to health authorities and they will be performance managed on service provision in their area.

  There are 24 practices in Coventry still accepting new patients for NHS dental treatment. A dental access centre across five sites in Coventry and Warwickshire is due to open soon. Dental access centres provide a complete range of dental services, including routine and urgent care. People do not need to register to see a dentist at a centre, and centres have extended opening times.

  Departmental Studies
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what studies his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) undertaken in the last five years on the management or administration of (i) National Health Service pensions, (ii) general procurement, (iii) National Health Service payroll and (iv) drug procurement; and if he will place copies of these reports in the Library. [135763]

  Mr. Denham
  A prior options review of the NHS Pensions Agency, which administers the NHS pensions scheme, was completed by the Department of Health in 1998. A copy of that report was placed in the Library.

  On general procurement, the then Secretary of State my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) and the then Chief Secretary of the Treasury, my right hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) who is now the Secretary of State for Health, commissioned a review of NHS procurement by a team from the Cabinet Office Efficiency Unit as part of the 1998 Comprehensive Spending Review settlement. The team reported to Ministers in November 1999. Copies are available in the Library.

  The Department has not commissioned or undertaken any reports during the last five years on the management or administration of the NHS payroll service.

  In November 1999 the Department commissioned a fundamental review of arrangements for the supply of generic medicines to National Health Service community pharmacies and dispensing doctors. The review was carried out by Oxford Economic Research Associates (OXERA) and their final report was submitted in September 2000. As a next step the Department intends to issue proposals for longer-term arrangements for the generics supply chain, drawing on OXERA' s work, for discussion with interested parties, along with a summary report of the factual basis of OXERA' s findings. A copy of the proposals and the summary report will be placed in the Library.

  In relation to branded medicines the Department produced the third Report to Parliament on the Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme. I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the

  71W
  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health, the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart), on 20 December 1999, Official Report, column 420W.

  Correspondence
  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire will receive a reply to his letter of 16 August on behalf of his constituent Mrs. Cochrane. [135786]

  Ms Stuart
  A reply to the right hon. Member's letter was sent on 1 November 2000.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he intends to answer the questions tabled on 17 July by the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby, on the subject of the Alder Hey inquiry, to which he gave holding answers; and when he will reply to the letters of 3 August and 20 September, on the same subject, from the hon. Member. [136183]

  Mr. Denham
  I shall let my hon. Friend have a reply to his questions and letters as soon as possible.

  Prescription Charges
  Dr. Naysmith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will set up a review of the system of prescription charges including assessment of the treatment under the scheme of(a) patients requiring life-long treatment for non-exempt medical conditions and (b) other patients who are exempted from charges; [135987]

  (2) when the list of medical conditions exempt from prescription charges was last reviewed; [135988]

  (3) what his policy is in granting exemption from prescription charges to patients suffering from sickle cell and thalassaemia; and what changes there have been in that policy since May 1997. [136001]

  Ms Stuart
  The list of medical conditions conferring prescription charge exemption was agreed with the medical profession in 1968. The list and other aspects of prescription charges were reviewed in 1998 as part of the Government's Comprehensive Spending Review. No changes were made to the list of medical exemptions. We have no plans to undertake a further review. Our policy is to give priority to helping those who may have difficulty in paying charges, rather than extending the exemption arrangements.

  Suicides
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent studies he has carried out on the correlation between individual doctors and suicides. [136095]

  Mr. Denham
  The Department commissioned a research project on suicide in high-risk occupational groups, conducted by Professor Keith Hawton and colleagues at the Centre for Suicide Research, University 72W
  of Oxford. The project was funded over the period 1 December 1993 to 30 June 2000. A major component of the study has been research on suicide in doctors. The research will help to inform policy development.

  Long-term Care
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which elements of the Government's proposals for elderly care, announced in the National Health Service National Plan, were included by the Royal Commission on Long Term Care in its estimate for free personal care. [136041]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Royal Commission on Long Term Care proposed that personal care should be free, with recipients of long-term care making a co-payment for living and housing costs. It did not sum a series of proposals to reach its estimate of the cost of free personal care. It used information on the costs of care and the numbers of privately funded residents. Our proposals for free nursing care fall within the Royal Commission's estimate of the cost of free personal care, as do the proposed changes to the residential charging rules—the three month property disregard, uprating the capital limits and resources to enable councils to place charges on homes.

  Fruit Juice Labelling
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will extend the period for the introduction of new packaging and labelling rules under the EU fruit juice Directive from 30 months to five years. [136662]

  Ms Stuart
  The European Union fruit juice Directive requires member states to prohibit the sale of products which fail to comply with its provisions 30 months after the directive enters into force. The UK has no discretion to extend the transition period set out in the directive. Industry is aware of the likely timescales for the required changes.

  Occupational Therapists
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will reply to the question tabled by the hon. Member for Twickenham on 16 May concerning occupational therapists (ref. 122908). [136315]

  Mr. Denham
  I replied to the hon. Member on 2 November 2000,Official Report, columns 605–06W

  Eye Tests
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many eye tests were carried out on people aged over 65 years since April 1999(a) in Coventry South and (b) nationally. [136692]

  Mr. Hutton
  We extended eligibility for National Health Service sight tests to everyone aged 60 and over from 1 April 1999. In England and Wales, 10,030,000 sight tests were paid for by health authorities in the year ending 31 March 2000. This was 34 per cent. more than the total for the year ending 31 March 1999 (7,469,000). Figures for the numbers of people aged 60 and over who have received free eye tests in particular areas are not collected centrally. However, the increase in the total number of sight tests paid for by Coventry health authority in the year ending 31 March 2000 was
  73W
  14,360. The increase in the total number of sight tests paid for by all health authorities in England in the year ending 31 March 2000 was 2,407,080. It is fair to assume that the majority of these increases was due to newly eligible people aged 60 or over obtaining NHS sight tests.

  Children in Care
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to raise the standards of care for looked after children. [136687]

  Mr. Hutton
  We have already taken steps to improve the standard of care received by looked after children, and we are committed to a clear programme of action to turn around the experience of this vulnerable group.

  The Government Response to the Children's Safeguards Review, in November 1998, set out a detailed programme to ensure good quality care for looked after children. The Quality Protects programme was introduced in 1999–2000, to improve the services provided to and the outcomes of vulnerable children, particularly looked after children. Councils receive special grant funding to help them make the changes required, and councils have been set clear targets which they are expected to achieve. In particular, the funding has been directed at improving the quality and range of placements available and at raising levels of educational achievement for looked after children. We recently announced the extension of this programme from three to five years.

  From 1 January 2001, small private children's homes will be brought into regulation. This will mean that, for the first time, these homes will have to meet the requirements of the Children's Homes Regulations 1991 and will have to be registered with council inspection units.

  The Children (Leaving Care) Bill will ensure that young people do not leave care before they are ready to do so. From 2002 the National Care Standards Commission will inspect children's homes, local authority fostering services and independent fostering agencies. Inspection will be against national minimum standards for the particular organisations which will ensure that the quality of care received by looked after children will be acceptable throughout England.

  NHS Walk-in Centres
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to develop further the number and range of NHS walk-in centres. [136589]

  Mr. Denham
  No decisions have been made about the number or range of further walk-in centres which might be developed in the future.

  We will consider this in the context of improving primary care services in general.

  Clinical Error
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to introduce an early warning system of clinical error. [136694]
  74W
  Ms Stuart
  We agreed all recommendations set out by an expert group on learning from adverse events in the National Health Service in the report "An Organisation with a Memory". We are planning, by the end of 2001, to introduce a new mandatory reporting system to log failures, mistakes, errors and near-misses in health care and ensure that lessons learned in one part of the NHS are properly shared with the whole of the health service.

  Primary Care Trusts
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress is being made on the development of primary care trusts. [136588]

  Mr. Denham
  Excellent progress continues to be made in developing primary care trusts (PCTs) with 44 primary care groups forming 40 PCTs in this first year. Over 130 further PCT proposals are now being assessed against national criteria. Final decisions on these proposals will be made shortly with a view to establishing the PCTs in January for an operational start date of 1 April 2001. At least a further 190 PCGs are also considering movement to trust status for 2002.

  NHS Beds
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to increase the number of beds in the NHS. [136688]

  Mr. Denham
  As a result of the National Health Service Plan there will be 7,000 extra beds by 2004. Of these, on current assumptions, 2,100 will be in general and acute wards, the first increase of its kind in 30 years. The remaining 5,000 will be in intermediate care.

  Violence against NHS Staff
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on steps being taken to protect NHS staff from violence. [136690]

  Mr. Denham
  A cross-government campaign "NHS zero tolerance zone" was launched on 14 October 1999, underpinned by a national target to reduce violence against staff by 20 per cent. by 2001 and by 30 per cent. by 2003. All National Health Service trusts should now have systems in place to record incidences of violence to staff, and also to have local reduction strategies in place.

  Phase II of the "NHS zero tolerance zone" campaign was launched on 3 October 2000. It is aimed at reducing violence in the high risk settings, namely mental health, ambulance, community and primary care.

  By April 2003, NHS employers are expected to be accredited as putting an improving working lives standard into practice, which includes applying zero tolerance to violence against staff.

  Institutional Racism (NHS)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he is taking to tackle institutional racism in the NHS. [136691]

  Mr. Denham
  Activity to mainstream race equality in the National Health Service is occurring on a number of fronts, including within policy making in the Department, service delivery and the NHS workforce. In January 2000
  75W
  the Department published "The Race Equality Agenda of the Department of Health", which set out a programme of action on race equality. "The NHS Plan: a plan for investment, a plan for reform", published in July 2000, recognises the need for a modern NHS to respond to the needs of our diverse, multi-cultural society. This is reflected in the core principles of the new NHS and in a number of the commitments made in the NHS Plan. The NHS Plan also makes clear that every member of staff in the NHS is entitled to work in an organisation which is committed to improving diversity and tackling discrimination and harassment (including racial discrimination and harassment). The Department has also launched an Equalities Framework for the NHS, "The Vital Connection", in April 2000, which includes clear requirements for the NHS to promote race equality and introduces a package of standards, indicators and monitoring arrangements. Significant progress has also been made in implementing "Tackling Racial Harassment in the NHS—a Plan for Action", published in March 1999. All these documents have been placed in the Library.

  Cataract Services
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on cataract services in the NHS(a) nationally and (b) in Coventry. [136581]

  Mr. Denham
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced in July that we are investing £20 million to modernise cataract services. This will ensure quicker and more efficient services for patients and increase the number of cataract operations performed from 170,000 in 1998–99 to 250,000 by the year 2003.

  A total of £2.1 million has been allocated from this money to improve cataract services in the West Midlands region. Of this, £630,000 has been awarded to a consortium that includes Coventry and Warwickshire Health Authorities.

  NHS Doctors
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many doctors(a) work and (b) worked in 1996 in the NHS. [136689]

  Mr. Denham
  The number of doctors working in the National Health Service as at 30 September 1999 (latest available figure) was 93,980. The comparable number working in the NHS in 1996 was 86,580. This represents an average annual increase of 2.8 per cent. per annum.

  Adoption
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children are awaiting adoption, broken down by age in years. [136854]

  Mr. Hutton
  The available information for the past five years to 1999 (latest year available) is given in the table.

  Estimated number of children looked after by local authorities who were placed for adoption at 31 March by age, England 1995–99

  Year

  Age at 31 March

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  0

  160

  140

  140

  260

  110

  1

  230

  260

  320

  370

  460

  76W

  Estimated number of children looked after by local authorities who were placed for adoption at 31 March by age, England 1995–99

  Year

  Age at 31 March

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2

  240

  250

  300

  350

  430

  3

  190

  240

  280

  250

  350

  4

  180

  220

  260

  260

  350

  5

  190

  180

  220

  270

  270

  6

  190

  170

  190

  200

  240

  7

  180

  150

  150

  130

  190

  8

  140

  150

  140

  130

  130

  9

  120

  120

  120

  90

  100

  10

  100

  90

  90

  70

  70

  11

  70

  70

  70

  30

  40

  12

  80

  60

  40

  30

  30

  13

  30

  50

  40

  10

  20

  14

  20

  20

  30

  10

  1—

  15

  20

  20

  10

  20

  0

  16

  10

  10

  10

  1—

  30

  17

  1—

  10

  10

  1—

  1—

  All ages

  2,200

  2,200

  2,400

  2,400

  2,900

  1 Estimate less than five

  Notes:

  1. Table excludes children looked after under a series of short-term placements

  2. Columns may not add to totals due to rounding

  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he plans to improve the system of adoption. [136855]

  Mr. Hutton
  We are committed to ensuring the best use of adoption as an option to meet the needs of looked after children. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced in February this year that we would conduct a thorough review of adoption services. As a first step towards this, we asked the Cabinet Office Performance and Innovation Unit to carry out a study of adoption practice during the summer to assess the evidence, explore the options for action and make recommendations to the Government. The Performance and Innovation Unit Report was published for consultation in July.

  The Prime Minister has announced that we will publish a White Paper before the end of the year setting out our new approach to adoption, building on the review and the results of the consultation. The White Paper will include proposals for new legislation to be introduced next year. In the meantime we are taking forward a programme of work to improve adoption services, including setting up a National Adoption Register and drawing up new National Standards for adoption services. In addition, we have announced an adoption and permanence task force to spread best practice and improve local council performance.

  We are also committed to improving intercountry adoption services and to putting in place effective measures to protect children. Regulations under the Adoption (Intercountry Aspects) Act 1999 are being prepared which will shortly be subject to a public consultation exercise. The Act enables the United Kingdom to ratify the 1983 Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption. We hope to be able to present the regulations to Parliament early next year.

  Drug-related Deaths
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many deaths were caused by(a) heroin, (b) crack/cocaine and (c) ecstasy in each year from 1990 to 1999; and what his projection is for the number of deaths in each category for 2000. [136573]

  Ms Stuart
  The information requested is given in the table, and is for England and Wales.

  Deaths where drug mentioned on death certificate

  Heroin

  Heroin and/or morphine

  Ecstasy/MDMA

  Cocaine

  1993

  67

  187

  8

  12

  1994

  127

  276

  27

  24

  1995

  162

  355

  10

  19

  1996

  241

  464

  16

  18

  1997

  255

  445

  11

  38

  1998

  407

  632

  15

  65

  Figures prior to 1993 have not been provided as they are not directly comparable to post-1993 data due to changes in the way data are collected and recorded. Data prior to 1993 are included in series DH4, available in Library. Detailed figures for the period 1993 to 1998 are available in Health Statistics Quarterly Editions 5 and 7, which can be found in the Library of the House. Data for 1999 will be available in 2001.

  It is difficult to make accurate predictions for the number of deaths in these categories for 2000, as the numbers are small and highly variable.

  Heroin and/or morphine is listed because heroin breaks down in the body into morphine, meaning the latter may be detected in the body at post-mortem and recorded on the death certificate. Therefore both figures are listed.

  Community Nurses (Mileage Allowance)
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what mileage allowances community nurses can claim in rural areas; and if these have been increased since 1997. [136500]

  Mr. Denham
  Mileage and travelling entitlements for National Health Staff, including community nurses, on national terms are determined by an agreement of the General Whitley Council. These rates were increased with affect from 1 July 2000, under cover of advance letter GC 2/2000 A copy of this advance letter, setting out the new rates, has been placed in the Library.

  Accident and Emergency Departments
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the average waiting time in accident and emergency departments by health authority for(a) 1997, (b) 1998 and (c) 1999. [135848]

  Ms Stuart

  [holding answer 1 November 2000]: Although the information requested is not currently collected centrally, the NHS Plan states that by 2004, no patient will wait more than four hours in accident and emergency departments from the time of arrival to admission, discharge or transfer, and that the average wait will be 75 minutes.

  Operation Cancellations
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what redress will be available to patients when operations are cancelled on the day they are due to take place under the National Plan. [135849]

  Mr. Denham

  [holding answer 1 November 2000]: In the National Health Service Plan we have pledged that from 2002, when a patient's operation is cancelled on the day of surgery for non-clinical reasons, the hospital will have to offer another binding date within a maximum of the next 28 days or fund the patient's treatment at the time and hospital of the patient's choice.

TREASURY

  Sickness Absence
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 28 July 2000,Official Report, columns 1023–4, regarding monthly outturns on sickness absence, if directors in his Department submit monthly or other regular reports on sickness absence; what unpublished statistics on sickness absence in his Department he holds; and if he will make a statement. [134829]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Incidences of sickness absence are reported by managers and collated centrally. Procedures for recording, monitoring and tackling sickness absence were reviewed in 1999 in line with the work on reducing absence following the July 1998 report on "Managing Attendance in the Public Sector".

  Tax and Benefits Confidential Helpline
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people have contacted the confidential telephone line set up on the advice of Lord Grabiner's report on the informal economy; and how much(a) tax has been received and (b) benefit expenditure has been saved as a result. [134553]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The number of calls received up to the end of October 2000 by the Tax and Benefits Confidential Helpline is 12,633. The amounts of tax recovered and benefits expenditure saved as a result of the line are not available and cannot be estimated. The phone line gives people the opportunity to find out where they stand on a no-names basis, so the numbers that have put their tax and benefits affairs in order as a result of the advice they were given are unknown.

  PIA Ombudsman
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many decisions were made by the Personal Investment Authority Ombudsman in each of the last two years; [135275]

  (2) how many decisions were made by the Personal Investment Authority Ombudsman in each of the last two years in favour of the complainant. [135274]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  This information is published in the annual report for 1999–2000 of the Personal Investment Authority Ombudsman Bureau, a copy of which is in the Library.

  ICS
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many cases were referred to the ICS(a) Independent Investigator and (b) Board of Directors in each of the last two years under the ICS Complaints Procedure; and how many of these referrals resulted in an amended decision. [135270]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  (a) None between 1 October 1998 to 30 September 1999 and two between 1 October 1999 and 30 September 2000; (b) none between 1 October 1998 and 30 September 1999 and three between 1 October 1999 and 30 September 2000; none of these resulted in an amended decision.

  Inland Revenue Officers
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will place the technical note on the review of Inland Revenue Officer powers in the Library. [135893]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Proposals arising from Inland Revenue's review of officer powers were published as chapter 3 of a technical discussion paper entitled "Simplifying National Insurance Contributions for Employers". This was published on 7 June 2000 and is available on the Inland Revenue's website. A copy has also been placed in the Library.

  Construction Industry
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many times the joint working group on review of the construction industry scheme has met; and if he will place the text of its recommendations and deliberations in the Library. [135895]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The joint working group met eight times. It discussed a number of the industry's concerns. The group did not set out to produce a text of its recommendations and deliberations.

  Intellectual Property Taxation
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will publish the technical note relating to the review of intellectual property taxation concerning intangibles and good will. [135901]

  Dawn Primarolo
  A technical note entitled "Reform of the taxation of intellection property, goodwill and other intangible assets" was published by the Inland Revenue on 23 June 2000.

  Petrol Prices
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of the average cost of petrol was accounted for by VAT and duty in each of the last seven years. [136005]

  Mr. Timms
  The proportion of the cost of petrol accounted for by duty and VAT is published in the Treasury publication "Tax Benefit Reference Manual", a copy of which is held in the House of Commons Library.

  FSA Inquiries (Human Rights)
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what guidance is given to Financial Services Authority investigators on procedures to be followed to ensure that inquiries do not breach human rights. [136105]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Financial Services Authority (FSA) currently provides staff, including investigators, to all the main bodies responsible for the regulation of financial services in the UK. All investigators receive training specifically tailored for the types of inquiry they carry out. Such training covers procedures to ensure that inquiries are conducted lawfully, fairly and with sensitivity to those involved.

  Departmental Policies
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will set out, including statistical information relating as directly as possible to the constituency, the effect on the Manchester, Gorton constituency of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [136173]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Manchester, Gorton parliamentary constituency, along with the rest of the United Kingdom, is benefiting from the long-term action we have taken to build economic stability and secure high and stable levels of growth and employment. Since the general election, claimant unemployment in the constituency has fallen by 1,812, or 37 per cent. youth unemployment is down by three-quarters, and long-term unemployment has been cut by more than half.

  Macroeconomic stability is being complemented at the microeconomic level by the Government's policies to ease the transition from welfare into work and to make work pay. To the end of the August 2000, the New Deal for 18 to 24-year-olds had helped 1,817 young people in the Manchester, Gorton constituency gain valuable skills and experience—755 (42 per cent.) of whom had moved into employment. The working families tax credit (WFTC), introduced in October 1999, is helping to make work pay for low and middle income families. In May 2000, 2,200 families in Manchester, Gorton were benefiting from WFTC.

  Mr. Emlyn Wynne
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will place a copy of the Financial Services Authority's Complaints Commissioner inquiry into the case of the late Mr. Emlyn Wynne in the Library. [136097]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The report of the FSA's independent Complaints Commissioner on his investigation into the complaint from the family of the late Mr. Emlyn Wynne contains information confidential to the firm and to the family, and has not therefore been made public.

  Political Donations (Tax)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy to tax donations to(a) political parties and (b) the offices of individual hon. Members. [136413]
  81W
  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government have no plans to introduce such a policy.

  Public Expenditure
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his policy is on the percentage of GDP which is represented by public expenditure. [136195]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Government's fiscal policy is guided by two fiscal rules first set out in the Financial Statement and Budget Report in July 1997 (HC85). This fiscal policy is underpinned by the Code for Fiscal Stability laid before Parliament under section 155 of the Finance Act 1998.

  Budget Letter
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy to submit his next Budget letter for independent adjudication before it is publicly distributed. [136191]

  Dawn Primarolo
  There is no Budget letter. All Budget documents will continue to provide an accurate and balanced account of the Budget.

  Single Currency
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will(a) commission and (b) publish independent assessments of whether his five economic tests are being met. [136411]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Treasury will make another assessment of the five economic tests early in the next Parliament.

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the non-economic factors which will be taken into account in determining the timing of a decision to replace the pound with the euro. [136263]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The determining factor underpinning any Government decision to join the single currency is whether the economic case for the UK joining is clear and unambiguous.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he last discussed constitutional issues raised by the euro with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. [136404]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer meets with his Cabinet colleagues on a regular basis and discusses a wide range of issues.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy in the event of UK membership of the eurozone to negotiate a right to withdraw unilaterally from the zone. [136190]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Any decision by the UK to join EMU would be made by the British people in a referendum and would be on the same treaty basis as applies to existing members.
  82W
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the causes of the fluctuations in the exchange rate between the euro and the pound in 1999–2000. [136009]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Exchange rates are determined by global markets and are influenced by a wide range of factors.

  Post Office Closures
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the effect of the closure of post offices since May 1997 on his objective of reducing financial exclusion. [136711]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Bringing those who are currently unbanked into the mainstream banking system will make a major contribution to reducing financial exclusion. The Government—through its £500 million investment in automation of the Post Office network, and its support for Universal Banking Services at post offices—is enabling the Post Office to make banking services more accessible to the financially excluded.

  Pension Funds (Tax Credit)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the effect of the abolition of the tax credit on dividends on the size of UK pension funds. [136417]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Government's package of corporation tax reforms included not only the withdrawal of payable tax credits on dividends but also cuts in corporation tax rates. These and other measures will help to improve investment performance. The effect of these changes on the size of UK pension funds will vary depending upon many factors, such as: the type of scheme; the take-up of private pensions; the level of future contributions and the investment policy adopted by fund managers.

  Tax System
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the role of the Paymaster General in tackling unfair tax contributions. [136415]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The responsibilities of Treasury Ministers are set out in the "List of Ministerial Responsibilities", copies of which are available in the Library of the House.

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many families benefit from the working families tax credit in each constituency in Wales. [136616]
  83W
  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) on 1 November 2000,Official Report, column 515W.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the future of the Working Families Tax Credit. [136473]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The introduction of the WFTC was the first step in a continuing programme of integration of tax and benefits, to make work pay better and improve support for families with children. In Budget 2000, the Chancellor announced the introduction, from 2003, of two new tax credits which will build on and extend the principles of the WFTC.

  Labour Market Trends Survey
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list (1) for(a) Great Britain, (b) England, (c) Scotland, (d) Wales and (e) each region (as defined in the Labour Market Trends Survey) the economic activity rate for (i) men, (ii) women and (iii) men and women, for age groups (A) 16 to 17, (B) 18 to 24, (C) 25 to 34, (D) 35 to 49, (E) 50 to 59, (F) 60+ and (G) all aged 16 and over, for each of the years available from 1979 to 2000; [136749]

  (2) for (a) Great Britain, (b) England, (c) Scotland, (d) Wales and (e) each English region (as defined in the Labour Market Trends Survey) employee jobs by industry, for (i) men, (ii) women and (iii) men and women, for each of the years available from 1979 to 2000; [136748]

  (3) for (a) Great Britain, (b) England, (c) Scotland, (d) Wales and (e) each region (as defined in the Labour Market Trends Survey) the ILO unemployment rate for (i) men, (ii) women and (iii) men and women, for age groups (A) 16 to 17, (B) 18 to 24, (C) 25 to 34, (D) 35 to 49, (E) 50 to 59, (F) 60+ and (G) all aged 16 and over, for each of the years from 1979 for which figures are available; [136747]

  (4) for (a) Great Britain, (b) England, (c) Scotland, (d) Wales and (e) each local area (as defined in the Labour Market Trends Survey) the claimant count, for (i) men, (ii) women and (iii) men and women, for age groups (A) 16 to 17, (B) 18 to 24, (C) 25 to 34, (D) 35 to 49, (E) 50 to 59, (F) 60+ and (G) all aged 16 and over, for each of the years available from 1979 to 2000. [136750]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from John Pullinger to Mr. Richard Allen, dated 6 November 2000:
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent questions regarding a variety of labour market statistics for men and women in different regions in Great Britain. I am replying in his absence. (136747/136748/136749/146750)
  Information on the number of employee jobs by region and industry for recent dates is published quarterly in table B.16 of Labour Market Trends. A back series of employee jobs, along with the number of people claiming unemployment-related benefits (the 'claimant count') by age and region are available through the Nomis database at the House of Commons Library. Information on computerised claims, by age, for regions and for a range of local area geographies is available monthly from June 1985.
  84W
  Estimates of economic activity and International Labour Organisation (ILO) unemployment by age and region are available from the Labour Force Survey (LFS), National Statistics' major source of labour market data on individuals. The information requested is also available through the House of Commons Library.
  The ONS preferred measure of unemployment is the ILO unemployment rate, derived from the LFS. It is defined on an internationally recognised basis. It counts as unemployed people who are a) without a paid job b) available to start work within the next two weeks and c) have either looked for work in the last four weeks or are waiting to start a job already obtained. This measure has been used in the LFS since 1984. LFS estimates of economic activity, defined as people in employment or ILO unemployed, are also available from 1984 onwards on a consistent basis.
  The Office for National Statistics (ONS) currently uses Government Office Regions (GORs) as the primary categorisation for regions. LFS estimates based on GORs are only available from 1992 onwards. LFS estimates based on the Standard Statistical Region categorisation are available from 1979, but only from 1984 onwards on the consistent ILO definitions of economic activity and unemployment.

  Low Earnings
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people in(a) Greater London and (b) the Sutton and Cheam constituency earn (a) £3.60 per hour, (b) £3.61 to £3.80 per hour, (c) £3.81 to £4 per hour and (d) £4 to £4.50 per hour; and what percentage of total employees this constitutes in each case. [134892]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Paul Burstow, dated 6 November 2000:
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent question on earnings in Greater London and the Sutton and Cheam constituency. (134892)
  The following table shows the percentage of employee jobs earning within specified hourly pay bands in Greater London and Sutton and Cheam. The table is based on data from the New Earnings Survey (NES) for April 2000. NES answers are given as percentages earning below specified thresholds, rather than numbers. This is because appropriate grossing factors for the NES sample are not available at very detailed levels.

  Percentage

  Greater London

  Sutton and Cheam

  £3.60 exactly

  0.2

  0.7

  £3.61–£3.80

  0.6

  1.3

  £3.81–£4.00

  1.0

  0.7

  £4.01–£4.50

  3.2

  6.0

  However, the NES underestimates the number of low paid jobs since it does not provide a comprehensive picture of the lower end of the earnings distribution. The Office for National Statistics (ONS) best estimates of the number of jobs in the UK with hourly pay less than national minimum wage rates were published in the NES press release on 26 October available in the House of Commons Library. These estimates are based on a new methodology that combines information from the NES and the Labour Force Survey. Further tables, including estimates for Government Office Regions, will be published on the National Statistics website (www.statistics.gov.uk) on 10 November.

  Government Accounts
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if it is the Government's practice to require the production of both an invoice and a receipt for accounting of expenditure in Government Departments; and if he will make a statement. [136558]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The rules on the authorisation by Government Departments of payments made by them are set out in Section 21.2 of Government Accounting (GA). Of particular relevance are GA paragraphs 21.2.1 and 21.2.19–22.

  There is a copy in the House of Commons Library.

  Mapeley Limited
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what date the contract between his Department and Mapeley Limited was concluded for the strategic transfer to Mapeley Limited of the ownership and management of the combined estate of the Inland Revenue and HM Customs and Excise; and if he will place a copy of the contract in the Library. [136957]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue and HM Customs and Excise are working with Mapeley to finalise the details of the STEPS contract.

  Statistics (Sutton and Cheam)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people were unemployed in the Sutton and Cheam constituency in each year since 1979 according to the International Labour Organisation definition. [134983]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Paul Burstow, dated 6 November 2000:
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent question on the number of people unemployed in the Sutton and Cheam constituency in each year since 1979 according to the International Labour Organisation (ILO) definition. (134983)
  The Labour Force Survey (LFS) is the main source of labour market data on individuals used by the Office for National Statistics (ONS). However, estimates for the number of people ILO unemployed are not available for small areas such as the constituency of Sutton and Cheam.
  The measure of unemployment derived from the LFS is defined on a consistent and Internationally recognised basis set out by the ILO. It counts as unemployed people who are (a) without a paid job (b) available to start work within the next two weeks and (c) have either looked for work in the last four weeks or are waiting to start a job already obtained. This measure has been used in the LFS since 1984.
  ONS also publishes the monthly numbers of people who are claiming unemployment-related benefits, also known as the Claimant Count. Comparable figures (based on the 1995 boundaries) are available since 1996. The attached table gives the annual average levels of claimants in the Sutton and Cheam parliamentary constituency since 1996.
  86W
  Information on the unadjusted claimant level by parliamentary constituency ward based on the 1981 wards are available monthly from June 1983 to January 1996 and can be obtained from the Nomis database in the House of Commons Library.

  The annual average levels of claimants in the Sutton and Cheam parliamentary constituency

  Year

  Number

  Rate

  1996

  2,053

  5.2

  1997

  1,315

  3.5

  1998

  990

  2.8

  1999

  881

  2.4

  Note:

  Average for the nine months January to September 2000 is 701 (1.9 per cent.).

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the infant mortality rates were in each of the last 10 years for(a) Sutton and Cheam constituency and (b) Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth Health Authority. [134989]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from John Pullinger to Mr. Paul Burstow, dated 6 November 2000:
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent parliamentary question asking for the infant mortality rates in the last 10 years for Sutton and Cheam constituency and Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth Health Authority. I am replying in his absence. (134989)
  The figures are shown in the attached table. The rates for Sutton and Cheam constituency (which are calculated from fewer than 20 deaths) may be unreliable due to the small number of events and should be treated cautiously. Any variation they show over time, or difference from National or health authority rates are likely to be due to chance.

  Infant mortality numbers and rates for Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth HA and Sutton and Cheam parliamentary constituency, 1990–99

  Registration year

  Number

  Rate1

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth HA

  1990

  78

  9.3

  1991

  49

  5.4

  1992

  57

  6.2

  1993

  67

  7.3

  1994

  33

  3.6

  1995

  59

  6.5

  1996

  51

  5.5

  1997

  40

  4.4

  1998

  39

  4.3

  1999

  42

  4.6

  Sutton and Cheam constituency

  1990

  9

  8.3

  1991

  2

  1.7

  1992

  6

  5.2

  1993

  3

  2.6

  1994

  1

  0.9

  1995

  8

  7.0

  1996

  5

  4.4

  1997

  3

  2.8

  1998

  3

  2.9

  1999

  4

  3.6

  1 per 1,000 live births

  87W
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many suicides there have been in(a) Greater London and (b) the Sutton and Cheam constituency in each year since 1980, broken down by age; and if he will make a statement. [134891]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Suicides and undetermined deaths1, registered in years 1980–99, for usual residents of Greater London

  All ages

  10–14

  15–19

  20–24

  25–29

  30–34

  35–39

  40–44

  45–49

  1980

  888

  1

  34

  76

  72

  70

  63

  83

  73

  1981

  986

  2

  35

  65

  89

  98

  79

  69

  64

  1982

  882

  7

  21

  73

  77

  87

  78

  62

  75

  1983

  890

  1

  27

  61

  70

  79

  67

  74

  77

  1984

  864

  2

  30

  59

  70

  63

  80

  66

  66

  1985

  836

  0

  31

  69

  73

  71

  72

  67

  74

  1986

  786

  1

  28

  68

  79

  66

  63

  62

  54

  1987

  801

  3

  24

  88

  79

  80

  86

  64

  61

  1988

  855

  4

  31

  84

  84

  78

  87

  62

  56

  1989

  774

  1

  31

  77

  89

  88

  64

  64

  62

  1990

  756

  0

  25

  74

  91

  84

  71

  56

  74

  1991

  737

  3

  14

  75

  88

  87

  67

  78

  65

  1992

  723

  3

  16

  75

  94

  89

  70

  64

  55

  1993

  726

  3

  15

  68

  97

  93

  69

  68

  68

  1994

  706

  3

  17

  63

  104

  88

  68

  63

  51

  1995

  674

  4

  17

  67

  89

  86

  83

  66

  57

  1996

  631

  2

  17

  49

  75

  93

  69

  69

  63

  1997

  667

  2

  26

  55

  89

  81

  72

  44

  70

  1998

  782

  3

  22

  65

  103

  123

  97

  68

  65

  1999

  682

  0

  14

  55

  81

  104

  78

  69

  55

  50–54

  55–59

  60–64

  65–69

  70–74

  75–79

  80–84

  85+

  1980

  64

  100

  66

  64

  47

  41

  25

  9

  1981

  87

  89

  89

  81

  61

  41

  25

  12

  1982

  75

  69

  63

  64

  51

  42

  24

  14

  1983

  74

  78

  64

  74

  62

  53

  19

  10

  1984

  84

  80

  70

  46

  51

  58

  27

  12

  1985

  62

  71

  76

  53

  52

  36

  18

  11

  1986

  67

  59

  49

  46

  50

  56

  26

  12

  1987

  47

  58

  63

  51

  50

  21

  13

  13

  1988

  55

  66

  52

  48

  48

  54

  24

  22

  1989

  49

  50

  46

  27

  36

  42

  29

  19

  1990

  52

  42

  35

  50

  25

  30

  30

  17

  1991

  54

  41

  40

  26

  31

  27

  25

  16

  1992

  49

  40

  39

  33

  37

  24

  22

  13

  1993

  43

  38

  29

  34

  28

  25

  28

  20

  1994

  46

  45

  36

  24

  29

  17

  19

  33

  1995

  47

  38

  26

  20

  15

  24

  16

  19

  1996

  39

  32

  25

  16

  28

  16

  19

  19

  1997

  55

  39

  35

  19

  25

  19

  15

  21

  1998

  57

  45

  29

  30

  21

  19

  13

  22

  1999

  50

  37

  31

  21

  24

  25

  20

  18

  1 International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, codes E950–959 and E980–E989 excluding E988.8.

  Suicides and undetermined deaths1, registered in years 1988–99, for usual residents of Sutton and Cheam constituency

  All ages

  10–14

  15–19

  20–24

  25–29

  30–34

  35–39

  40–44

  45–49

  1988

  4

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1989

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1990

  13

  0

  0

  2

  0

  1

  0

  1

  3

  1991

  6

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1

  2

  0

  1992

  6

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1993

  5

  1

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  88W
  Letter from John Pullinger to Mr. Paul Burstow, dated 6 November 2000:
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent question on the numbers of suicides in Greater London and the Sutton and Cheam constituency in each year since 1980 broken down by age. I am replying in his absence.
  Figures for Greater London are presented in the attached table for years up to 1999, the latest available. Boundary changes to the Sutton and Cheam constituency mean that figures are not available for years prior to 1988. Figures for Sutton and Cheam are therefore presented in the attached table only for years 1988 to 1998, based on the 1999 constituency boundary.
  89W

  Suicides and undetermined deaths1, registered in years 1988–99, for usual residents of Sutton and Cheam constituency

  All ages

  10–14

  15–19

  20–24

  25–29

  30–34

  35–39

  40–44

  45–49

  1994

  7

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1995

  8

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  1996

  4

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1

  2

  1997

  8

  0

  0

  0

  1

  2

  0

  1

  0

  1998

  7

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  2

  1

  0

  1999

  6

  0

  1

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  1

  50–54

  55–59

  60–64

  65–69

  70–74

  75–79

  80–84

  85+

  1988

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1989

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1990

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  0

  0

  1991

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1992

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  1

  1

  1993

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1994

  0

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  0

  0

  1995

  0

  2

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  1996

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1997

  2

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1998

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1999

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1 International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, codes E950-E959 and E980-E989 excluding E988.8

  VAT (Fuel)
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on(a) the level of VAT receipts received in the current financial year to date from petrol and diesel sales and (b) the level of sales projected by his Department for that period. [136316]

  Mr. Timms
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) on 31 October 2000,Official Report, columns 410–11W.

  Forestry
  Mr. HomeRobertson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what additional funding is being made available for(a) that section of MAFF responsible for forestry in England, (b) the Scottish Executive and (c) the National Assembly for Wales in respect of (i) the decision not to proceed with the sale of cutting rights in Forestry Commission forests and (ii) the consequences of falling world timber prices on Forest Enterprise; and if he will make it his policy to ensure that the Scottish Executive and the National Assembly for Wales are given access to support from the UK Treasury on a basis equivalent to what is proposed for the English part of the Forestry Commission, and that the extent of forestry in each country is taken into account. [137093]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Forestry Commission in England is a Government Department distinct from MAFF. Spending Review 2000 set provision for the Forestry Commission in England and its Great Britain core functions. The allocation of Spending Review 2000 provision for Scotland and Wales is a matter for the Scottish Executive and the National Assembly for Wales.

  The Statement of Funding Policy published in July 2000 sets out the funding policies for the devolved Administrations.

  The implications of the current income shortfall are being reviewed with the Forestry Commission, the Scottish Executive and National Assembly for Wales.

  Employment Rates
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the contribution to GDP which would result from employment rates in each of the age groups(a) 45–50, (b) 50–55, (c) 55–60, (d) 60–65, (e) 65–70 and (f) over 70 years being the same as the employment rates in the age group 40–45 years. [136076]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Paul Flynn, dated 6 November 2000:
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent question on estimates of the contribution to Gross Domestic Product (GDP) which could result from employment rates in certain age groups being the same as employment rates in the age group 40–45 years.
  This information is not available. In order to make this calculation it would be necessary to make assumptions about the characteristics of those entering employment and the jobs they would be doing. In particular predictions would have to be made as to what the hours worked and earnings would be of people moving from inactivity to employment. While simplistic assumptions could be made it might prove misleading to assume, for example, that these factors would be the same as for those already in employment.

  Public and Voluntary Sector Funding (Walsall)
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what total additional funding has been allocated for use by public and voluntary sector organisations in the Walsall borough since May 1997; and if he will list the Government Departments from whose budgets such funding was paid. [136847]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Figures giving total funding across all public and voluntary sectors in the borough are not readily available, and would involve disproportionate cost to acquire.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Winter Fuel Payments
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what checks are made to ensure the validity of claims for backdated winter fuel payments. [134561]

  Angela Eagle
  The administration of winter fuel payments is a matter for Alexis Cleveland, the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Alexis Cleveland to Mr. David Willetts, dated 6 November 2000:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking what checks are made to ensure validity of claims for backdated winter fuel payments.
  As with all claims to benefit, checks are made to validate any claim before payment is considered. This is completed by various means, including but not restricted to, reference to existing Departmental records and National Insurance data.
  For making Winter Fuel Payments in respect of previous years, use has been made of address matching software. Before validating any payments for retrospective claims, records have been cross-matched with previous years Winter Fuel Payments to ensure that payments are made only to those entitled and at the correct amounts.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many households will benefit this winter from the winter heating allowance in each county in Wales. [135991]

  Angela Eagle
  The information requested is not available because forecasts of winter fuel payment recipients and the number of households in which they live are only produced for Great Britain as a whole. For each unitary authority in Wales, the estimated number of people (rather than households) who benefited from the winter fuel payment in the winter—1999–2000 is shown in the table.

  Estimates of the number of recipients of winter fuel payments for winter 1999–2000 by unitary authority in Wales

  Thousand

  Number

  Wales (total)

  548.4

  Isle of Anglesey

  14.1

  Gwynedd

  25.3

  Conwy

  27.9

  Denbighshire

  20.0

  Flintshire

  24.4

  Wrexham

  21.5

  Powys

  26.4

  Ceredigion

  13.5

  Pembrokeshire

  22.7

  Carmarthenshire

  36.8

  Swansea

  45.0

  Neath Port Talbot

  26.1

  Bridgend

  22.7

  The Vale of Glamorgan

  22.0

  Rhondda Cynon Taff

  41.3

  Merthyr Tydfil

  10.2

  Caerphilly

  27.8

  Blaenau Gwent

  12.8

  Torfaen

  16.3

  92W

  Estimates of the number of recipients of winter fuel payments for winter 1999–2000 by unitary authority in Wales

  Thousand

  Number

  Monmouthshire

  17.3

  Newport

  23.8

  Cardiff

  50.5

  Note:

  The table is based on 5 per cent. samples of administrative information and therefore subject to a degree of sampling error.

  Household Incomes
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many(a) pensioners and (b) children in each of the past five years have lived in households with less than 60 per cent. of median income. [134558]

  Mr. Bayley
  The information is in the tables.

  Number of pensioners living in households below 60 per cent. of contemporary median income

  Million

  Including self-employed

  Excluding self-employed

  Year

  Before housing costs

  After housing costs

  Before housing costs

  After housing costs

  1994–95

  2.0

  2.5

  1.9

  2.3

  1995–96

  2.1

  2.4

  2.0

  2.3

  1996–97

  2.0

  2.5

  1.9

  2.4

  1997–98

  2.1

  2.6

  2.0

  2.5

  1998–99

  2.2

  2.6

  2.0

  2.4

  Number of children living in households below 60 per cent. of contemporary median income

  Million

  Including self-employed

  Excluding self-employed

  Year

  Before housing costs

  After housing costs

  Before housing costs

  After housing costs

  1994–95

  2.9

  4.0

  2.3

  3.3

  1995–96

  2.7

  4.0

  2.2

  3.4

  1996–97

  3.3

  4.4

  2.7

  3.9

  1997–98

  3.2

  4.3

  2.7

  3.8

  1998–99

  3.1

  4.2

  2.6

  3.7

  Notes:

  1. All figures are estimates and are taken from the Households Below Average Income (HBAI) data set which is derived from the Family Resources Survey (FRS). The FRS does not include Northern Ireland, and 1998–99 is the latest year for which data are available.

  2. The estimates are sample counts, which have been adjusted for non-response using multipurpose grossing factors that control for region, Council Tax band and a number of other demographic variables. Estimates are subject to both sampling error and to variability in non-response. All numbers are rounded to the nearest 100,000.

  3. The income measure used is weekly net (disposable) equivalised household income (that is to say income that is adjusted to reflect the composition of the household). While the number of individuals below various income thresholds may be sensitive to the precise way in which incomes are equivalised, changes shown over time generally are not.
  93W
  4. The estimates are presented on both a Before Housing Costs (BHC) and an After Housing Costs (AHC) basis in line with HBAI conventions. Figures are also provided including and excluding the self-employed, as research suggests that, for self-employed people, income as reported in surveys is often a poor indicator of living standards.

  Source:

  Family Resources Survey

  We have pledged to halve the number of children living in poverty in 10 years and eradicate child poverty in 20 years and we have already made significant progress. Estimates of the impact of the last four budgets are that the tax and benefit measures announced will lift 1.2 million children above the 60 per cent. median threshold after housing costs.

  Also, past changes in pensioner incomes reflect the fact that many pensioners have simply lost out on the opportunity for all people of working age to build a second pension. We are also determined to provide security for all of today's pensioners. The minimum income guarantee provides that security for pensioners with low incomes and our national take-up programme will encourage those entitled to claim.

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will set out the basis of his calculation of the number of people who will be taken off Housing Benefit as a result of the Working Families Tax Credit. [135262]

  Angela Eagle
  Estimates of the numbers of households taken off Housing Benefit as a result of the Working Families Tax Credit were produced using the Department of Social Security's Policy Simulation Model (PSM). The PSM is based on the Department's annual Family Resources Survey, which is a sample of around 23,000 households in Great Britain. Individuals' and households' income tax and national insurance liabilities, and entitlements to tax credits and social security income-related benefits, are modelled according to the prevailing tax and benefit rules and rates. The numbers in receipt of particular benefits are then calibrated to the forecasts for those benefits, published in the departmental report, or underlying the Pre-Budget Report.

  The effects of Working Families Tax Credit on the number of Housing Benefit recipients was determined by modelling two different benefit systems—one with Working Families Tax Credit, and one as if Family Credit had continued in existence, with appropriate uprating of benefit rates. All other tax and benefit rules were kept the same in the two systems. Adjustments were then made to ensure coherence with other forecasts. Comparison of the two modelled systems then gives the effect on the number of Housing Benefit recipients.

  Benefit Expenditure
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will so out the calculations behind the Government's statement that expenditure on contributory benefits will increase as a proportion of total benefit expenditure by 1.2 per cent. over the present Parliament. [135263]
  94W
  Angela Eagle
  The information is in the table.

  Contributory benefits expressed as a percentage of total benefits

  1996–97

  2001–02 Departmental Report

  2001–02 Spending Review

  Contributory Benefits

  42,159

  49,958

  50,061

  Total Benefits

  92,212

  106,479

  106,367

  Contributory percentage of total

  45.72

  46.92

  47.06

  Notes:

  1. The contributory benefits are Retirement Pension, Widow's benefit, Jobseeker's Allowance, Statutory Sick Pay, Incapacity benefit, Maternity Allowance, Statutory Maternity Pay, Guardian Allowance.

  2. Total benefits include all local authority spending on Housing benefit and Council Tax benefit in addition to the money funded directly from Central Government.

  Sources:

  Departmental report 2000. Spending Review 2000

  The rise in contributory benefits as a proportion of total benefit expenditure over the present Parliament is the proportion for 2001–02 of 46.92 per cent. less that for 1996–97 of 45.72 per cent. which gives 1.2 per cent. This was calculated using figures from the Departmental Report 2000. The table also shows the latest figures for 2001–02 published in the Spending Review 2000. The increase using these figures is 47.06 per cent. less 45.72 per cent. giving 1.3 per cent.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many additional staff have been moved into frontline positions in his Department and its agencies since April. [135265]

  Angela Eagle
  1,037 staff have moved, or are planned to move, from central and support services to the frontline under the organisational changes, announced in February, to focus the Department's resources on service delivery. It is expected that 2,500 posts will have moved by the end of this financial year, with a further 500 posts moved in the following year.

  Benefits (Special School Pupils)
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what benefit entitlement there is for 16 to 18-year-olds in education in special schools in respect of(a) the pupil and (b) the pupil's parents; and if he will make a statement. [135537]

  Angela Eagle
  Child Benefit is normally payable to the parents of all young people who remain in relevant education until they leave school or until their 19th birthday if this comes first. For the purposes of benefit entitlement relevant education means non advanced education, usually up to A level standard and includes special schools.

  Entitlement to other benefits for 16 to 18-year-olds in relevant education, (whether or not they are in special schools), and their parents, will depend on their circumstances.
  95W
  Those parents entitled to one or more of the income related benefits of Income Support, Jobseeker's Allowance (Income Based), Housing Benefit, or Council Tax Benefit, may include the young person in their claim as a dependant, and the relevant child personal allowance and premiums will be included in the assessment.

  In certain instances, young people may claim Income Support in their own right, while continuing with their studies at school. These include those who are lone parents, young people who are severely mentally or physically handicapped, those who necessarily live away from their parents, and those who are estranged from their parents. Child Benefit ceases to be paid for young people who claim in their own right.

  Young people who, because of a severe mental or physical disability need help with personal care or mobility for at least three months, and are likely to continue to need help for a further six months or more, may qualify for Disability Living Allowance, regardless of their parents' circumstances. In addition they may also qualify for Severe Disablement Allowance.

  A parent who spends at least 35 hours a week caring for a young person who gets Disability Living allowance may claim Invalid Care Allowance.

  Benefits Agency Staff
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what consultations he has held on the working practices and conditions of Benefits Agency staff; and if he will make a statement. [135527]

  Angela Eagle
  Benefits Agency (BA) management recognises and values the importance of obtaining the views of staff and their elected representatives.

  BA has a formal Partnership Agreement with the Public and Commercial Services Union, the union who represent the majority of staff working for BA. The principles enshrined in this document are, for example allowing the unions the widest possible scope for influencing decisions prior to resolution, followed in consultation and negotiation when discussing any changes to staff's terms and conditions of employment.

  Benefits Agency Doctors
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the review of fees and expenses payable to doctors working on behalf of the Benefits Agency will be concluded. [135547]

  Mr. Bayley
  The third report of the Social Security Select Committee looking at the standards of service provided by Sema Group Medical Services states that the question of doctors pay is an issue for Sema Group Medical Services to address.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list in date order the Housing Benefit regulations and amendments to them issued since 1 May 1997. [135719]

  Angela Eagle
  The information has been placed in the Library.

  Central Recovery Group
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security for what reason the Central Recovery Group failed to meet its estimates of revenue recovery in each of the last three years. [135479]

  Angela Eagle
  The administration of benefits is a matter for Alexis Cleveland, the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. She will write to my right hon. Friend.

  Letter from Alexis Cleveland to Mr. Frank Field, dated 6 November 2000:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to respond to your Parliamentary Question asking for what reason the Central Recovery Group failed to meet its estimates of revenue recovery in each of the last three years.
  The table below sets out the Central Recovery Group's overpayment recovery targets for the past three years, as set by the Department on behalf of the Secretary of State, and their achievement against those targets.

  £ million

  Year

  Target

  Performance

  1997–98

  10.3

  10.4

  1998–99

  12.8

  15.3

  1999–2000

  16.9

  19.1

  You will note that they have exceeded their target each year.

  I hope this is helpful.

  Severe Disablement Allowance
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the Government's plans to abolish Severe Disablement Allowance. [135538]

  Mr. Bayley
  The reform of Severe Disablement Allowance (SDA) will refocus benefit on people disabled early in life who have never had the opportunity to work and gain entitlement to incapacity benefits through the payment of contributions.

  At present, the poorest 70 per cent. of those receiving SDA also receive Income Support (IS). The IS rules require every pound of their SDA to be deducted from their IS so, in practice, they receive no benefit from SDA.

  From April 2001, young disabled people under 20 (or 25 if they were in education or training that continued beyond their 20th birthday) will be given access to Incapacity Benefit without having to satisfy the normal contribution conditions. Based on current rates, they will gain up to £26.70 a week. No new SDA claims will be accepted but existing recipients will be protected and will continue to receive SDA for as long as they continue to satisfy the conditions of entitlement. In addition there are special linking periods of eight weeks, one year and two years for people who leave SDA before April 2001 to try work or training which would allow them to return to SDA if they are still within their linking period.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many(a) new claims and (b) awards of Severe Disablement Allowance there were in each of the last 18 months. [136304]
  97W
  Mr. Bayley
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the table.

  Severe Disablement Allowance, new claims and awards

  New claims received (Number)

  Spells commencing

  December 1998

  2,896

  1,900

  January 1999

  3,527

  1,100

  February 1999

  3,857

  1,100

  March 1999

  4,227

  1,300

  April 1999

  3,342

  1,100

  May 1999

  3,318

  600

  June 1999

  3,916

  800

  July 1999

  4,228

  800

  August 1999

  3,910

  700

  September 1999

  4,064

  1,300

  October 1999

  4,354

  1,000

  November 1999

  4,377

  1,100

  December 1999

  3,016

  1,300

  January 2000

  3,548

  1,000

  February 2000

  4,155

  600

  March 2000

  4,692

  1,200

  April 2000

  3,481

  1,100

  May 2000

  3,913

  800

  Notes:

  1. New claims figures are a 100 per cent. count from Central Data Unit.

  2. Awards figures are taken from a 5 per cent. scan of the benefit computer system and excludes a small number of cases held clerically. These figures are shown in thousands and have been rounded to the nearest hundred.

  3. Awards in a particular month do not necessarily relate to claims received in that month.

  Widowers' Benefits
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what the implications for recently widowed men are of last year's out-of-court settlement with Mr. Christopher Crossland on widowers' benefits; and what new help will be offered to men who are widowed before the new benefit rules come into force next year. [135721]

  Angela Eagle
  The friendly settlement reached with Christopher Crossland has no implications for Widows' Benefits.

  Fathers who are widowed before Bereavement Benefits are introduced will be able to claim Widowed Parent's Allowance from 9 April 2001 as long as they satisfy the qualifying conditions.

  Benefits Agency Reorganisation
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what discussions he has had with trade unions regarding the planned changes to the Benefits Agency leading to the establishment of a working age agency and a pensions agency. [135525]

  Angela Eagle
  A working age agency joint trade union forum has been established which represents staff from Employment Service, Benefits Agency and other parts of the Department of Social Security and all the constituent unions (Public and Commercial Services, First Division Association and Institute of Professional Managers and Specialists). This joint forum has met twice to date and arrangements have been made for regular monthly meetings with senior management within the working age programme on behalf of my right hon. Friends the 98W
  Secretaries of State for Social Security and for Education and Employment. These monthly meetings will be supplemented by additional meetings with the appropriate programme managers to discuss issues of detail.

  Union representatives from this forum are also due to meet with Ministers from this Department and from the Department for Education and Employment on 11 December 2000.

  Similar arrangements have been put in place with the DSS Trade Union side to discuss matters relating to the setting up of the pensions organisation.

  ONE Pilot
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the ONE pilots. [135526]

  Angela Eagle
  The ONE service is designed to change the culture of the benefits system by providing an integrated, work-focused service for all people of working age. Pilots commenced in twelve areas of the country in 1999 and are due to run until April 2002.

  The ONE pilots are the subject of rigorous evaluation to determine the effectiveness of the new service compared to the present one. They will be evaluated using a range of standard evaluation techniques, and data will be compared from the different model pilots to assess their relative effects.

  When robust and reliable research findings are available, they will be published. We expect to be in a position to publish the first findings from the preliminary phase of the pilots by the end of the year.

  CSA
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if voluntary payments made by non-custodial parents directly towards their children's maintenance are deducted by the CSA from the calculation of maintenance that it requests from the non-custodial parent. [135827]

  Angela Eagle
  Many non-resident parents want to, and do, provide financial support for their children while their maintenance liability is being calculated by the Child Support Agency. Voluntary payments of child maintenance paid before liability has been calculated can be offset against that liability. However, voluntary payments are not currently provided for in legislation and the Child Support Agency follows guidelines to determine which payments should be set-off against arrears of maintenance.

  The Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act 2000 gives statutory recognition to voluntary payments made before maintenance has been assessed. In the new child support scheme, payments in cash, either direct to the parent with care or via the Agency, and payments by the non-resident parent of household bills for mortgage repayments, gas/electricity or water bills can be offset as voluntary payments.

  Once maintenance liability has been calculated, there is no provision for voluntary payments to be taken into account and maintenance liability can only be discharged if payments are made to a specified person, usually the parent with care, directly, or through the CSA. The

  99W
  amount of debt which arises through non-payment of child maintenance will not be offset by any amounts the non-resident parent has paid to the child, such as for pocket money or presents.

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if the new child support scheme indicates the categories of expenditure covered by the CSA maintenance payment. [135852]

  Angela Eagle
  Maintenance calculations under the new child support scheme are intended to provide a reasonable level of support for children while leaving non-resident parents with sufficient income to meet their other responsibilities.

  The new rates do not reflect an assessment of levels of expenditure in specified categories and it will be for the parent with care to decide how best to spend the money in the interests of her children.

  Charter of Fundamental Rights
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the cost to his department of adopting Article 25 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights; and if he will make a statement. [135570]

  Angela Eagle
  None. The charter will be a political declaration and is not legally binding. It is addressed to the EU institutions, and to member states only when they are implementing Union law (Article 51(1)). It does not establish any new power or task for the Community or the Union or modify powers and tasks defined by the Treaties (Article 51(2).

  Invalid Care Allowance
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to allow carers to keep their invalid care allowance money on receipt of their state pension. [135528]

  Mr. Bayley
  On 3 October we announced, as part of a package of measures for carers, plans to give people aged 65 and over the right to claim Invalid Care Allowance (ICA) for the first time. This entitlement will be subject to existing rules governing the receipt of ICA, including abatement where state retirement pension is paid.

  We estimate 40,000 pensioners will gain access to ICA or the carer premium for the first time as a result of this change.

  Vaccine Damage Victims
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the sums due to victims of vaccine damage he will pay to the families concerned; and if he will make a statement. [135996]

  Mr. Bayley
  In his statement on vaccine damage of 27 June 2000,Official Report, columns 719–27, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that top-up payments would be made in all cases where a vaccine damage award had been made prior to that date. About 900 awards had been made between 1978 and the date of
  100W
  the statement. So far 129 top-up payments have been paid amounting to £8,696,500. Another 122 cases are nearing completion. In general cases are being paid in date order, that is to say, those customers who received their original payment the longest time ago will be paid first. The Vaccine Damage Payment Unit has recruited additional staff and arrangements are in place to progress the remaining payments as soon as possible while ensuring the interests of the intended beneficiary are protected.

  Benefit Fraud (Local Authorities)
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many local authorities have been subject to a review by the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate; and in which cases he has used the powers in section 139D of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 to direct a local authority. [136159]

  Mr. Rooker
  As at 3 November 2000, the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate had completed inspections on 73 local authorities and was in the process of inspecting a further 30 authorities. Directions under section 139D of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 have been given to one local authority, Northampton Borough Council, in August 2000.

  Benefits (Sutton)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people in(a) the Sutton and Cheam constituency and (b) the London borough of Sutton have been in receipt of (i) Income Support, (ii) Disability Living Allowance, (iii) Incapacity Benefit, (iv) Unemployment Benefit and (v) Housing Benefit in each of the last 10 years; and if he will make a statement. [134890]

  Angela Eagle
  The administration of benefits is a matter for Alexis Cleveland, the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Alexis Cleveland to Mr. Paul Burstow, dated 6 November 2000:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to respond to your recent Parliamentary Question asking how many people in (a) the Sutton and Cheam constituency and (b) the London Borough of Sutton have been in receipt of (i) income support, (ii) disability living allowance, (iii) incapacity benefit, (iv) unemployment benefit. and (v) housing benefit in each of the last 10 years; and if he will make a statement.
  The data is not available in the requested format, however the information that is available is supplied in the attached tables.
  I hope this is helpful.

  (i) Income Support

  Year

  Sutton and Cheam constituency

  London borough of Sutton

  May

  1990

  —

  8.1

  1991

  —

  8.8

  1992

  —

  8.9

  1993

  —

  12.7

  1994

  —

  12.8

  1995

  —

  12.7

  101W

  (i) Income Support

  Year

  Sutton and Cheam constituency

  London borough of Sutton

  1996

  —

  12.3

  1997

  —

  8.6

  1998

  —

  8.2

  1999

  2.8

  8.0

  2000

  3.1

  7.9

  Notes:

  1. Figures are based on a 5 per cent. sample and therefore subject to sampling error.

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

  3. Income Support for the unemployed was replaced by Income Based Jobseekers Allowance in October 1996. Figures up to and including May 1996 included the unemployed on Income Support.

  Source:

  Income Support Statistics Quarterly Enquiries, 1990–2000

  (ii) Recipients of Disability Living Allowance

  Year

  Sutton and Cheam constituency

  London borough of Sutton

  May

  1993

  1,200

  2,700

  1994

  1,400

  2,600

  1995

  1,300

  2,600

  1996

  1,400

  2,900

  1997

  1,400

  3,300

  1998

  1,329

  3,414

  1999

  1.418

  3,548

  2000

  1,505

  3,707

  Notes:

  1. Figures up to 1997 are based on 5 per cent. data and are rounded to the nearest hundred. For later years the figures are based on 100 per cent. data and are unrounded.

  2. Figures not available for 1992 owing to incomplete regional data.

  3. Yearly figures are given at 31 May.

  Source:

  DSS Information Centre

  (iii) Incapacity Benefit

  Year

  Sutton and Cheam constituency

  London borough of Sutton

  May

  1995

  —

  2.6

  1996

  —

  2.5

  1997

  —

  2.5

  1998

  1.0

  2.3

  1999

  1.0

  2.2

  2000

  0.9

  2.3

  Notes:

  1. Incapacity Benefit figures by Parliamentary Constituency are unavailable before 1998.

  2. Figures taken from 5 per cent. samples of the benefit computer system, and exclude a small number of cases held clerically. A rating factor has been used on figures for the London borough of Sutton from May 1996 to May 1999, to account for missing postcodes.

  3. Figures are expressed as thousands and are rounded to the nearest hundred.

  4. Yearly figures are given at 31 May.
  (iv) Unemployment Benefit
  No figures are available for Unemployment Benefit by either parliamentary constituency or Local Authority however figures for Jobseekers Allowance are provided in the table below.
  Unemployment benefit ceased in 6th October 1996 and Jobseekers Allowance began from 7th October 1996.
  102W

  Jobseeker's Allowance

  Sutton and Cheam constituency

  London borough of Sutton

  August 1997

  —

  2.5

  May 1998

  —

  2.3

  August 1998

  0.9

  —

  May 1999

  1.1

  2.4

  May 2000

  1.7

  1.7

  Notes:

  1. Claimant figures have been rounded to the nearest hundred and expressed in thousands.

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

  3. Jobseeker's Allowance replaced Income Support for the unemployed in october 1996.

  4. Figures are for all claimants including those with nil benefit.

  Source:

  Jobseeker's Allowance Statistics Quarterly Enquiry, August 1997 to May 2000

  (v) Housing Benefit

  Year

  London borough of Sutton

  May

  1992

  9,470

  1993

  10,170

  1994

  10,280

  1995

  10,610

  1996

  10,880

  1997

  10,690

  1998

  9,980

  1999

  9,650

  2000

  8,870

  Notes:

  1. The figures supplied are for May each year from 1992 to May 2000.

  2. The figures have been rounded to the nearest ten cases.

  3. If the Local Authority failed to return any data, this will have been estimated.

  4. The data for the years prior to 1992 are unavailable. The data for the Sutton and Cheam constituency are unavailable as the lowest level that the data are collected for is by Local Authority.

  Source:

  Housing Benefit Management Information System, Quarterly 100 per cent. caseload inquiries taken in May 1992 to 2000.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Metropolitan Police
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of whether the Metropolitan police are institutionally racist. [134999]

  Mr. Charles Clarke

  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made clear his assessment of institutional racism in the Metropolitan police service as well as in other public institutions in his statement to the House on publication of the report of the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry on 24 February 1999,Official Report, columns 389–93. The action plan he published in March 1999 sets out a major programme of reform, the implementation of which is overseen and audited by the steering group set up for this purpose, which he chairs. The first annual report on progress in implementation of the action plan was published in February 2000.

  Nice Inter-Governmental Conference
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what issues within the remit of his Department are to be the subject of negotiation at the Nice Inter-Governmental Conference. [134785]

  Mr. Straw
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has overall responsibility for Inter-Governmental Conference issues, which are expected to be concluded at the European Council in December in Nice.

  The scope of the conference and the Government's position on the main issues was set out in the Government's White Paper—"IGC: Reform for Enlargement", in February 2000. The Home Office has a direct interest in several of the treaty changes which are being proposed, in particular some of those related to any extension of qualified majority voting.

  Violent Crime
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will commission an independent study of the possible reasons for the increase of violent crime in 1999–2000 and publish its findings. [134782]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I have no plans to commission such a study.

  Action to reduce violent crime, based on research by the Home Office as well as from other sources on the causes of and trends in violent crime and crime overall, is ongoing. Police forces are aware of the increase in violent crime and are carrying out proactive operations to tackle it.

  EU Judicial System
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if it is his policy to support the principle of the establishment of an EU-wide system of jurisdiction; and if he will make a statement on proposals under discussion thereon. [134797]

  Mrs. Roche
  We do not favour the establishment of a single European Union-wide jurisdiction, nor are there any current proposals to establish one. The United Kingdom fully supports the Tampere conclusion that mutual recognition should be the cornerstone of judicial co-operation in the European Union.

  Police Recruitment
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers were recruited in the last 12 months, having previously served in forces outside Great Britain. [135822]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The information requested is not collected centrally. However, inquiries made with the Northern Ireland Office have established that in the last 12 months three officers from the Royal Ulster Constabulary have been recruited by forces in England and Wales.

  "Voices"
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much his Department spent on advertising space in the recent Government publication, "Voices". [135588]
  104W
  Mr. Straw

  [holding answer 30 October 2000]: The Home Office has spent £5,477.85 including VAT on advertising space in "Voices". This expenditure covered in 1999 an advertisement featuring information about the "Break the Chain" initiative on domestic violence and this year a police recruitment advertisement.

  Merseyside Police
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much funding has been allocated to Merseyside police since May 1997 in annual budgetary settlement and in special programmes; and how much of that funding was additional to the formulae aid programmes in operation before that date. [135832]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The amount of funding allocated to Merseyside in annual budgetary settlement since 1997 is shown in the table.

  £ million

  Year

  Government funding
  1

  1997–98

  207.5

  1998–99

  213.2

  1999–2000

  215.3

  2000–01

  220.7

  1 Includes Home Office Police Grant, Revenue Support Grant and National Non-Domestic Rates grant.

  Provision for 1996–97 was £203.4 million.

  In addition the force has received:

  £ million

  Year

  Capital grant
  1

  1997–98

  3.8

  1998–99

  2.3

  1999–2000

  2.0

  2000–01

  2.5

  £

  Year

  Loan charges grant
  1

  1997–98

  414,488

  1998–99

  340,380

  1999–2000

  351,136

  2000–01

  318,450

  1 Full year figure

  Home Office accounts records show that the force has also received the following individual payments:

  August 1997 Police Firearms Grant—£66,556

  August 1999 Police Beacon Scheme—£83,000

  March 2000 Police Beacon Scheme—£8,880

  June 2000 Crime Fighting Fund—£664,195

  September 2000 Crime Fighting Fund—£430,216

  October 2000 Anti-robbery grant—£1,800,000.

  "Casework Information Needs within the Criminal Justice System"
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish a formal response to the report, "Casework Information Needs within the Criminal Justice System", undertaken jointly by the Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate, HM Inspectorate
  105W
  of Constabulary, HM Magistrates' Courts Service Inspectorate, HM Inspectorate of Prisons, HM Inspectorate of Probation and the Social Services Inspectorate; and if he will make a statement. [135580]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Government welcome the joint inspectorates' report, and the way the six separate inspectorates collaborated together in reporting jointly on casework information flows right across the criminal justice system (CJS). This joint approach fits in well with the Government's development of joint planning for the CJS as a whole and in particular with the CJS Integrating Business and Information Systems (IBIS) initiative. There are no plans to publish a formal response to the report but it will be a useful aid to CJS departments, services and agencies in improving the way they currently handle casework information and its findings are being taken forward in ongoing work by CJS departments, including the points raised about the IBIS model of information flow in the criminal justice system. The inspectorates have indicated that, in their future inspections, they will be seeking confirmation that the recommendations of this report are being addressed and will commission a review of the implementation of the recommendations in two years' time.

  Dorset Police Authority
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what were the numbers of(a) operational police officers and (b) total staff employed by the Dorset Police Authority in (i) May 1997 and (ii) at the latest date for which figures are available. [135535]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Information on operational police numbers is collected in March of each year by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary. Total staffing numbers are collected twice a year in March and September. The latest available information in both cases are those for March 2000.

  The information is set out in the table.

  Dorset Police

  Year (as at 31 March)

  1997

  2000

  Total number of operational police officers

  1,081

  1,223

  Total police numbers

  1,284

  1,306

  Total number of civilian staff'

  615

  686

  Total number of staff employed

  1,899

  1,992

  1 excludes traffic wardens

  Between March 1997 and March 2000 the number of operational police officers in the Dorset Police increased by 13 per cent. The total increase in police service personnel for the same period was nearly 5 per cent.

  Ball-bearing Guns
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to ban ball-bearing guns; and if he will make a statement. [135533]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  There are no plans to ban ball-bearing (BB) guns. These weapons generally have muzzle energies much lower than that required to inflict an injury more serious than superficial bruising. Because of this they do not fit the definition of a firearm contained in the Firearms Act 1968 and do not come under the 106W
  control of the Act. However, as the Home Affairs Committee (HAC) recognised in its recent report on "Controls Over Firearms", there is a danger of armed police being called out to deal with youngsters brandishing these weapons in the street.

  In its response to the HAC, the Government accepted the recommendation that the sale of these weapons to young people by mail order, telephone and the internet be banned and extended to include sales through any outlet, including face to face. The Government are therefore now considering how the sale of these and other replica firearms to people under 18 years of age might be restricted.

  Kray Brothers
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what files the Metropolitan police hold of material assembled by the Kray brothers; what their policy is on public access to those files; and if he will make a statement. [135715]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  This is a matter for the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police but I understand that nine files concerning the Kray brothers have been deposited in the Public Record Office. At the time of the last review the Lord Chancellor's Advisory Council agreed that all but one of these should be withheld from public inspection for a period of at least 50 years from the date of the last action on the papers. The one other file is subject to the 30 year rule.

  Criminal Record Checks
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what consultation there has been with voluntary organisations on the cost of criminal record checks by the Criminal Records Bureau; and if he will make a statement; [134677]

  (2) if his Department has issued guidance to local authorities on whether the cost of criminal record checks by the Criminal Record Bureau should be paid for by the local authority or the new employee; and if he will make a statement. [134678]

  Mr. Charles Clarke

  [holding answer 31 October 2000]: We have had frequent contacts over many months with voluntary sector organisations on a wide variety of issues concerning the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB). There have been ad hoc meetings at both ministerial and official levels with the National Council for Voluntary Organisations (NCVO), with individual bodies such as the Scout Association and with groups of organisations such as national sports bodies. The NCVO represents the sector on the board which oversees and advises Ministers on the programme as a whole, and several voluntary organisations are represented on the Customer Forum, which provides a bridge between the CRB and its future clients. Before making regulations prescribing such matters as the fees to be charged by the CRB, we shall carry out a regulatory impact assessment in consultation with affected bodies, including representatives of voluntary organisations. This will provide a thorough and up-to-date assessment of the implications.
  107W
  The cost of certificates will be charged to the individual on whom the check is sought, although there is nothing to stop an employer such as a local authority or any organisation reimbursing the individual if they so wish.

  Organ Donation Forms
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what plans he has to require local authorities to send out organ donation forms with their electoral registration forms; [136037]

  (2) if he will list those local authorities which send out organ donation forms with their electoral registration forms. [136834]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  It is the responsibility of each electoral registration officer (ERO) to decide whether to include additional literature with the electoral registration form. I have no plans to change that arrangement. The Secretary of State for Health and the Home Secretary wrote jointly to the professional associations of electoral administrators to seek their help in encouraging EROs to include organ donation literature with the electoral registration forms which were sent out this year. I have no substantive information about those EROs who have done so in the past.

  Lord Lieutenants
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the answer of 26 October 2000,Official Report, column 216W, regarding lord lieutenants, if he will provide a full breakdown of expenses incurred during the financial year 1999–2000 for the lord lieutenant of (a) Greater Manchester and (b) the West Midlands; and what mechanisms are in place to ensure that expenses claimed by lord lieutenants are appropriate and provide value for money. [136712]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Costs for the Lord Lieutenancies of Greater Manchester and the West Midlands are higher than those for other Metropolitan Lieutenancies because they include more significant staffing and accommodation costs.

  All claims for expenses and other costs incurred by the Lieutenancies in England are carefully considered by the Home Office before payments are made.

  Pursuant to this, it may be helpful if I give some further information to put the figures previously provided on 26 October 2000, Official Report, column 216W, into their proper context.

  Lord Lieutenants are appointed under current legislation by The Queen on the advice of the Prime Minister, following consultations locally and, where appropriate, with the First Minister or Secretary. Lord Lieutenants are much appreciated in their counties and areas, particularly as a link with the Royal Family and for their support of a wide range of local voluntary and community work.

  Lord Lieutenants are unpaid. They may however claim expenses from central Government for certain items such as travel and other reasonable non-entertainment expenses incurred in carrying out their official duties. Amounts claimed will clearly vary according to, for example, levels of activity in each county and area, size and dispersal of populations, and the personal circumstances of each Lord Lieutenant. Some choose not to claim any expenses.
  108W
  In addition, counties and areas provide varying levels of administrative support, as do some Government Departments in respect of functions carried out by Lord Lieutenants on their behalf. The Home Office meets the cost of administrative support for Metropolitan counties in England.

  Marsham Street
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Sir W. Spicer) of 24 July 2000,Official Report, column 452W, on the future of the three tower blocks in Marsham Street SW1, if the evaluation of the two private sector consortia involved in the public private partnership project to provide offices for his department and Prison Service staff has been completed; and if he will make a statement on his Department's latest position with regard to the future of the tower blocks. [136714]

  Mr. Straw
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave my hon. Friend, the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington North (Ms Buck), on 28 July 2000,Official Report, column 1167W.

  Home Detention
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many prisoners have been released in Cumbria under the home detention curfew scheme to date; and if he will make a statement; [136436]

  (2) how many of the prisoners released in Cumbria under the home detention curfew scheme have reoffended; and for what offences they have been convicted. [136437]

  Mr. Boateng
  This information is not available centrally. Data on releases under the Home Detention Curfew scheme are broken down by contract region, and not by county.

  However, I will make further inquiries of the electronic monitoring contractor for the Northern Region and write to the hon. Member with this information as soon as it is available. A copy will be placed in the Library.

  Sai Baba
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many representations requesting that Her Majesty's Government take action against Sai Baba he has received in the last 12 months; [136849]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the activities of Sai Baba involving UK citizens in (a) the UK and (b) India. [136848]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  During the last 12 months the Home Office has received eight representations from members of the public about Sai Baba, of which seven were from overseas. In addition four representations have also been made by my hon. Friend.

  The Government's position is that the members of this, and any other religious organisation, are free to follow their own doctrines and practices provided that they remain within the law.

  Fingerprint Evidence
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance is available for chief police officers in standardising procedures for assessing fingerprint evidence; how frequently have standards been changed since a standardised system was first introduced; and what standards are used by police forces of(a) other European Union member states and (b) the United States. [134881]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The current requirement for presenting fingerprint evidence in court is based on at least 16 points of comparison. This dates from 1935. In 1988 the Home Office commissioned a review of this requirement. A report was published in Fingerprint World and the Journal of Fingerprint Identification and was placed in the Library. In 1994 the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) initiated a review which concluded that fingerprint evidence should in future be based upon the expert testimony of fingerprint officers rather than any particular fixed number of points of comparison. ACPO are planning to introduce a non-numerical standard in the new year, once they are satisfied that the appropriate quality assurance standards, inspection, training and competency testing regimes that will underpin the new standard are in place within force fingerprint bureaux.

  There is no single common standard in Europe. Norway has a non-numerical standard while others have numerical standards varying between eight and 16 characteristics. Europol are considering moving to a non-numerical standard.

  The United States uses a non-numerical fingerprint standard.

  Telecommunications (Records)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidelines and safeguards govern access to the records of(a) mobile telephone service providers, (b) cell phone relay masts and transmissions and (c) individual subscriber call records; and what body has responsibility for oversight. [134991]

  Mr. Boateng
  Communications data may be supplied voluntarily for specified purposes (eg investigation of crime) under section 29 of the Data Protection Act 1998 and section 45 of the Telecommunications Act 1984. It may additionally be supplied in obedience to court orders.

  A more tightly controlled regulatory regime will be provided for under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. Chapter II of part I of the Act regulates access to communications data, explains the duties and responsibilities placed upon each party involved in the process, and creates a system of safeguards.

  The overall regime will be subject to oversight by the office of the Interception Commissioner. We aim to consult on a draft code of practice early next year, and to implement the chapter II provisions by April 2001.

  Racial Discrimination
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which representatives of the Government attended the August 2000 session of the UN Committee on the Elimination of all forms of Racial 110W
  Discriminations hearing the UK Periodic report made under the Convention; what were the recommendations of the Committee; and what response will be made to each recommendation. [134880]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Government were represented by Sara Marshall, head of the Race Equality Unit at the Home Office, and Henry Steele, from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office Legal Department. They were supported by Warwick Maynard, Julie Clouder, Brian Quaife and Tim Woodhouse from the Home Office, and Nia James and Paul Bentall from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

  Copies of the committee's recommendations have been placed in the Library.

  A 16th update report, which will respond to all the recommendations, is currently being drafted. It is due to be submitted to the United Nations Committee by April 2001; copies will then be placed in the Library.

  New City Creation
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the decision on the creation of a new city will be published. [136309]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  No date has yet been set for the announcement of the result of the competition for the millennium grant of city status, but we are aiming for an announcement before the end of the year. City status is a rare mark of distinction granted by the Queen on the advice of Ministers.

  Offshore Taxation
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what powers Her Majesty's Government have in respect of international agreements to require taxes to be levied in the(a) Channel Islands and (b) Isle of Man. [136781]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The report of the Royal Commission on the Constitution (Command Paper 5460) sets out in paragraphs 1497 and 1513 the limited circumstances in which, in its view, the United Kingdom would be justified in using its paramount powers in respect of the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. As indicated in paragraph 1503, and also in paragraph 1535, these include the fulfilment of the United Kingdom's international responsibilities and obligations. Taxation in the islands has always been on the basis of laws enacted by the island legislatures.

  Illegal Entrants
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many fines have been imposed on transport operators carrying illegal entrants to the UK since the scheme of fines was introduced. [136762]

  Mrs. Roche
  Since 3 April 2000, when the civil penalty provisions of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 were introduced, and 31 October, 552 penalties have been imposed on persons found to have carried between them a total of 3,127 clandestine entrants to the United Kingdom in their vehicles.

  Police Stations (Counter Closures)
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police station front-counters have closed in England and Wales, excluding the Metropolitan police area, since 1 January; and if he will make a statement. [136576]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  This information is not centrally collected.

  Electoral Register
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place a copy of his Department's study into the establishment of a central electoral register in the Library; when the study was commissioned; what the cost was; and if he will make a statement. [136208]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Improvement and Development Agency for local government (IdeA) was asked in April of this year to consider how access to the separate electoral registers maintained at a local level could be made easier for the purpose of checking that those making political donations were on the register. I will place in the Library a copy of the paper presented by IdeA to a steering group established by them to consider the issues. This group includes representatives of those who have responsibility for the registers and the Home Office. IdeA has undertaken this work as part of its general remit to improve the electronic delivery of services and there has been no charge to the Department.

  Discussions are continuing with IdeA and representatives of electoral registration officers. An arrangement for making access to the registers easier and quicker would involve a considerable IT project and is unlikely to be completed before next October. We are considering with IdeA as a matter of urgency what interim arrangements could be made for when the controls on donations set out in the Political Parties, Election and Referendums Bill come into force.

  Emergency Planning
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance he has issued to(a) local authorities and (b) other bodies regarding emergency planning procedures to be put in place in the event of a further disruption of fuel supplies; and if he will make a statement. [136313]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Organisations likely to be involved in responding to any future disruption to fuel supply have been briefed on the planned arrangements. This includes, for example, the list of designated petrol stations, and the list of Priority Purposes together with guidance on how to implement it.

  Local Authorities have been kept updated through established liaison links and by the involvement of the Local Government Association in work carried out for the Fuel Task Force.

  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list(a) actual and (b) planned spending on emergency planning in (i) each of the last five financial years, (ii) 2000–01 and (iii) each of the next five financial years; and if he will make a statement. [136312]
  112W
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The information requested is given in the table. The figures are for Home Office expenditure on emergency planning and include grants, which the Home Office allocates to local authorities in England and Wales as a contribution towards their emergency planning activities. However, it is worth noting that other Government departments also have an interest in emergency management, and provide funding that supports recruitment of specialist staff, equipment purchase and academic research.

  The Spending Review 2000 exercise, recently completed by Her Majesty's Treasury, has looked forward to the three years 2001–02, 2002–03 and 2003–4. Budget allocations for these years have not yet been finalised within the overall Home Office settlement.

  Figures for 2004–05 and 2005–06 will be established in subsequent spending round reviews.

  Home Office gross expenditure on emergency planning

  £ million

  Actual

  Planned

  1995–96

  33

  36

  1996–97

  34

  33

  1997–98

  31

  29

  1998–99

  29

  29

  1999–2000

  38

  36

  2000–01

  136

  36

  1 Estimate

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reasons his Department's grant for emergency planning in Shropshire was reduced between 1999 and 2001. [136836]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The reorganisation of local government necessitated the introduction of a new distribution mechanism for Civil Defence grant which was announced to local authority chief executives in May 1999. The three-tier system includes a basic allocation, a sum for County Councils in respect of Shire Districts and a final element based on population size.

  The allocation to Shropshire County Council has fallen between 1999–2000, and the proposed allocation for 2001–02. However, part of this reduction is offset by an increase in funding to the unitary authority of Telford and Wrekin which was formerly part of the county.

  Prisoners (Voting Rights)
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to amend the law to allow convicted prisoners to vote at local and national elections; and if he will make a statement. [136559]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I have no plans to change the law. Neither the Home Affairs Committee report on electoral law and administration in 1998 nor the working party on electoral procedures in 1999 recommended any change to the current provisions prohibiting convicted prisoners from voting.

  Fuel Crisis
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) arrests were made and (b) charges have been brought in relation to the recent fuel crisis; and if he will make a statement. [136311]
  113W
  Mr. Straw
  In England and Wales, 32 people were arrested as a result of the fuel protests in early September. In addition, 62 people were reported for summons, predominantly drivers of vehicles wilfully obstructing the highway. Information on the number of charges brought is not centrally available.

  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what emergency procedures his Department put in place during the recent fuel crisis; what reporting requirements were placed on local authorities and others in relation to the disruption and availability of fuel supplies; how the reports were(a) delivered and (b) distributed; and if he will make a statement. [136314]

  Mr. Straw
  Ministers and officials across Departments met regularly as the Civil Contingencies Committee. The Home Office Emergency Operations Centre was opened, and other Departments involved activated their own special arrangements. All of these were coordinated by operations based in the Cabinet Office.

  Regular situation reports on all aspects of the situation, including from local authorities, were commissioned and distributed as appropriate by email or fax.

  Bingo
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to deregulate the bingo industry. [137030]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I am publishing today a consultation document which sets out proposals for an order under the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act, 1994, to deregulate certain aspects of the bingo industry. Our consultation document makes three specific proposals.

  First, we propose the abolition of a requirement for licensed bingo clubs to notify the licensing authority of changes in their charges to players 14 days in advance. This part of our proposals will also have a small benefit for licensed casinos.
  114W
  Second, we propose to change the law so as to allow bingo clubs to have a mixture of jackpot and lower prize gaming machines.

  Finally, we propose to amend the law on multiple bingo—also known as the 'National Game'—so that it can offer more than one national, regional, and house prize.

  The Government believe that these reforms will benefit both the industry and its customers. The consultation document asks for responses by 16 February 2001. I am arranging for copies to be placed in the Library.

  CRE (Annual Report)
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he plans to publish the Commission for Racial Equality's 1999 annual report; and if he will make a statement. [137031]

  Mr. Straw
  The Commission for Racial Equality's annual report 1999 is published today and copies have been laid before Parliament.

  Exceptionally this year the report goes beyond the 12 calendar months stipulated by the Race Relations Act 1976 and covers a 15 month period thus encompassing both the calendar year 1999 and the financial year 1999–2000.

  The Commission for Racial Equality have produced a report which they believe meets both the requirements of the Race Relations Act 1976 and the Commission's own need to report on achievements against targets which are based on the financial year.

  However, since the Race Relations Act 1976 requires reports to be made in relation to the calendar year, and as soon as practicable after the end of the year, we have advised the Commission that future reports need to follow these requirements until such times as Parliament may decide to amend the Act.

  Copies have also been placed in the Library and they have been sent to the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales.

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

Consumer Legislation
Lord Razzall Lord Razzall asked Her Majesty's Government:
What representations have been received on the timing and content of the consumer Bill; when these representations were received; and from whom.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, since early summer we have received 44 representations on consumer legislation. Representations have been received from national organisations such as the National Association of Consumer Advice Bureaux, the National Consumer Council, the Consumers' Association and the Federation of Small Businesses and from individuals and Members of Parliament.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, does the Minister accept that consumer complaints to local trading standards officers about unsatisfactory goods and services are now running at the rate of 1 million per year? The National Consumer Council estimates that there are probably 85 million cases per year of unsatisfactory goods and services. In such circumstances, does not the Minister feel it would be appropriate for the Government to put a new consumer Act at the top of their legislative programme?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as the noble Lord will know, the bad news is that I cannot anticipate what might be contained in the Queen's Speech. The good news is that a great deal of what the noble Lord and the Government want can be achieved without primary legislation. In particular, the use of secondary legislation and the application of the EC injunctives directive have the prospect of making the existing law more effective.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that one of the more serious abuses of consumers is intimidation and harassment by debt collectors, especially of elderly people? The present sanction of withdrawing a debt collector's licence is something of a nuclear option. Does not my noble friend think that it would be better to have a range of sanctions, including fines imposed by trading standards officers, to deal with the malpractices of debt collectors?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I agree entirely with the noble Lord. His successor at the Office of Fair Trading also agrees. My noble friend will have seen that Mr John Vickers has announced increased activity by the Office of Fair Trading
1228
through the use of trading standards officers of local councils under the powers given by the EC injunctives directive, to which I referred earlier.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I support entirely what the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, said. I have been a victim of punitive debt collectors who threatened distress on my home for a seven year-old debt. I told them, "Look, rather than this, I shall pay. But I shall report you to the appropriate ministry". They backed down. Does the Minister agree that we need some help from government?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am sorry to hear of the noble Lord's bad experience. I cannot think it happened because he is elderly. The existing legislation has only had available criminal sanctions, which, as has been said, are a nuclear option. We need greater use of local action and injunctions. That would go some way towards dealing with a problem which will continue to crop up.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the Government consider reintroducing some of the provisions of the Moneylenders Act 1927 which were inexplicably omitted from the Consumer Credit Act 1974? Will the noble Lord undertake to investigate this issue? I think he will find that there is merit in my suggestion.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his lesson in history. My knowledge does not go back that far. I shall have to write to him about the provisions of the 1927 Act which were not re-enacted. It would seem that he has made a valid point.
Lord McNally: My Lords, does the Minister recall that when I introduced my Private Member's Bill on counterfeiting and copyright theft earlier this year his response was so constructive and positive that I withdrew the Bill? I know that the industry has been in touch with the department. How much progress has been made in those private talks? Does the Minister anticipate that progress will be made towards introducing legislation in regard to counterfeiting and copyright theft?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I cannot comment on the private talks to which the noble Lord refers. The best hope of getting action on his admirable Private Member's Bill is not through primary legislation but through more direct action. I cite in particular the establishment of Trust UK, a form of self-regulation for e-commerce in which the Consumers' Association and the CBI are joined. That is not the same point as the one made by the noble Lord but it may be a way forward for the problems he identifies.

NHS Administration
2.42 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil Lord Peyton of Yeovil asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are able to give an approximate estimate of the number of committees existing under the auspices of the National Health Service.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, the Department of Health does not collect information on the number of committees operating within the National Health Service. The Government are, however, committed to saving £1 billion on management costs over five years from 1997–98 and are well on course to do so.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will accept that to ask even as energetic a Minister as himself to count up to so vast a number would be unreasonable. I hope that the noble Lord agrees with me on this matter. Will he do all that he can to cut out a fungus that has been growing for years, stifling initiative, blurring responsibility and wasting resources? It is a terrible phenomenon.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Well, my Lords, I had considered whether to set up a committee to inquire into the number of committees! I fully accept that the National Health Service needs a lean administrative structure, and that is our aim. I accept also that we should, so far as possible, attempt to make decisions in time-limited task forces and small groups which bring together managers, commissions and other professional staff within the National Health Service, overseen by the necessary statutory committees.
I must, however, say to the noble Lord—whose autobiography is a very good read—that he himself is not short of sitting on a committee or two. I particularly commend his membership of the Confederation of European Ministers of Transport, which he describes as an "unusual international body". He says that it,
"generated goodwill, mutual understanding, and never even looked for anything to have a row about".
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving my book a much-needed puff!
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, does the Minister recollect that I asked a question earlier this year to which he was not able to give an answer—namely, how many layers of management there are in the National Health Service between a staff nurse in a hospital and the Secretary of State? Has anyone managed to count them, or is the figure too high for a human to comprehend?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I do not recall the noble Lord putting the question in precisely that manner. Clearly, it is not possible to describe the activities of 500 different organisations in the National Health Service. Each will have different management arrangements. We are seeking to ensure that decisions are made as speedily as possible. I have no doubt that the NHS Plan, which is focused on ensuring that doctors, nurses and other professionals are fully involved in decision-making, will lead to the most effective decisions being taken as quickly as possible.
Earl Howe: My Lords, does the Minister agree that my noble friend Lord Peyton makes an essentially wise point—namely, that the decision-making processes in the NHS are often painfully slow and cumbersome? What initiatives have the Government taken to streamline decision-making and to bring about savings?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, as I explained, we are well on course to make the savings that I mentioned. As a percentage of NHS expenditure, the total spent on management costs has come down from 5.5 per cent in 1996–97 to 4.6 per cent in 1999–00. We shall continue to make reductions in management costs, as we have pledged to do. The most visible example of the Government's approach to more effective and streamlined management is the establishment of the NHS Plan. It was produced within four months, and involved nearly 150 people working in the front line of health to bring about change. As a result, we have produced a practical, effective plan which will lead to major change. We are expecting each local health community to undertake a similar process, which I believe will be equally successful.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, is the Minister aware that many people—of whom I am one—no longer believe that there are too many chiefs as opposed to not enough indians in the Health Service? There may not be enough indians, but the service certainly needs strong management at the top. It is wrong to think that such a huge enterprise can be run without that. Does the Minister agree on the importance of top management?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Yes, indeed, my Lords; the quality of leadership in the NHS is crucial. That is why, in the NHS Plan, we have set out proposals for establishing a leadership centre in order to identify and give support to the lay managers and professional managers who will lead the NHS through a process of change. But at the same time we need to ensure that we reduce unnecessary administration to a minimum level. That was the whole purpose of abolishing the internal market, which made the NHS suffer through a countless and endless paperchase. We have very good leadership in the NHS. That will lead to effective change in the way services are provided.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the Minister focuses on committees and leadership. Given that his interest in these subjects is now aroused, will he recall that a committee cannot lead? Leadership comes from individuals. Is it too late to look back to the hospital matron, who has disappeared from the National Health Service—to its eternal loss?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I commend to the noble Lord the NHS Plan, which refers to the creation of "modern matrons". It is true that, over a period of 20 years, senior ward sisters have lost autonomy. Functional management in relation to catering and cleaning has taken away their responsibility for the direct management of individual wards. One of the most important ways in which we can improve patients' quality of experience is to give back to senior ward sisters many more powers than they have had in the past few years. That is what the concept of the "modern matron" is all about.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, does my noble friend recall that the Salmon report did away with matrons, sisters and so on? It was implemented by Sir Keith Joseph.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Yes, my Lords. That report also created an extensive hierarchy. In the past few years, particularly with the introduction of the internal market and general management, the hierarchy was removed. This created problems because, having attained a level above that of ward sister, very few nurses entered senior management positions. At board level in particular, a senior nurse became a professional adviser rather than a manager. We need to turn that situation around. We need senior nurse leaders who can have an enormously influential impact on the quality of decisions taken within an individual hospital.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, the Minister said that the Government do not know how many committees there are within the NHS. If they do not know the number of such committees, how will they know when the number is reduced?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, we are talking about 516 NHS bodies. It would be quite a waste of time and resources for us to undertake a census or audit of each committee in existence within such bodies. We use the concept of management costs as a way of keeping control on the amount of money spent on management. As I explained, we are seeing a reduction in management costs that will net the health service £1 billion for expenditure on patient services over a five-year period.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, is the Minister aware that we shall be very keen to help him count the number of committees that are cut out as a result of that process?

House of Lords: Committee Sittings
2.51 p.m.
Baroness Sharpies Baroness Sharpies asked the Leader of the House:
Whether she has any plans to reduce the number of hours for which it is necessary for the House to sit in Committee next Session.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for raising this issue. No one is more enthusiastic than I about improving the procedures of this House so that we use our time efficiently while retaining proper scrutiny. The noble Baroness will be aware that any change needs the agreement of the House, and that there is little scope for executive action. However, proposals are being discussed. One is to consider more Bills under the Grand Committee procedures in the Moses Room, which would certainly achieve the noble Baroness's aim. Unfortunately, at the moment, the opposition to that change comes from her side of the House.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for that reply. Does she accept that 134 hours in the spill-over have been spent discussing legislation in Committee? Many of the Bills under consideration have been badly drafted—indeed, a number of noble Lords have complained about this—which has resulted in an enormous number of government amendments being tabled. I am sure that the noble Baroness will agree that this, in turn, has led to a lot of very tired, and sometimes rather ill-tempered, Peers in the Chamber. This has also affected the staff, especially the Hansard writers, who are extremely tired.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I certainly agree that we have been sitting for longer than another place in the spill-over period. However, if the noble Baroness were to look at the comparative figures of the number of hours that we have been sitting, she would see that during the previous Session the House sat, on average, for seven hours and 36 minutes each day. Moreover, in each of the previous four Sessions, the average sitting day was also over seven hours. I agree with the noble Baroness that we need to be very aware of the stress and strain put on the staff who serve us so well.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, does my noble friend recall that we had a debate tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord Peston earlier in the year, not only on the question of hours but much more besides? Perhaps my noble friend could advise the House what has been done since then, and tell us what has been achieved.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, we have put forward various proposals, one of which was considered by the Procedure Committee last week. At that time, my noble friend the Government Chief

1233
Whip suggested that it might be sensible for the House to sit at different, not fewer, hours on a Thursday, beginning in the morning and ending in the evening. I am sorry to tell my noble friend that that proposal from the Government Chief Whip was rejected by the Procedure Committee.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, can the noble Baroness tell the House how many amendments have been proposed by the Government, both in Committee and on Report, to government legislation in this House during the current Session? If the answer to that question is what I suspect it will be, does the noble Baroness agree that the main culprit is not the procedures of this House but the inability of the Government properly to prepare their legislation? Indeed, when the Government realise that they have failed to do so, they use this House as a means of rewriting legislation wholesale and then ram it through another place without proper consideration. Does the noble Baroness further agree that the proposal that she has just made about taking a greater proportion of Committee stage business off the Floor of the House will actually make it easier for the Government to ram through more legislation, rather than it being considered properly?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am afraid that I do not agree with any of the points made by the noble Viscount, especially the final one. I did not suggest—indeed, I have never suggested—that the majority of Committee stages should be held in the Moses Room: I simply said that the Government Chief Whip and the usual channels have discussed the possibility of more Bills being considered in the Moses Room. For example, during this Session it has been possible to agree that Committee stages in the Moses Room should be taken only on Bills that will last just one day. As I understand it, that has not been the situation in previous Sessions.
I turn now to the number of amendments passed this year. As I am sure the noble Viscount is aware, information on the number of government amendments, as opposed to other amendments, is not kept in that form. However, I can give the noble Viscount the total number of amendments: during this Session 3,936 amendments were tabled, compared to 2,002 in the previous Session and 2,164 in 1992–93. Although the number of amendments for this year is large, I am sure that both the noble Viscount and noble Lords will see that it is not out of proportion when compared with other years.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, in addition to taking more Committee stages off the Floor of the House—after all, Committee stages are intended to explore the ramifications and details of Bills—would it be of assistance to the House if we were to accept the proposal that votes should not be taken during Committee? Surely the taking of such votes on Report would be more appropriate for a part-time House, as this is.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, that is another matter that my noble friend the Government Chief Whip has sought to raise. Indeed, it is something that I should very much support.
Lord Alexander of Weedon: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that there is a strong case for increasing the number of Bills that are subject to pre-legislative scrutiny, because that is one way of seeking to improve legislation?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: Yes, my Lords. I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his suggestion. Reverting to the subject of the previous discussion about Bills being taken off the Floor of the House, the noble Lord was heavily involved in the financial services legislation that was considered this Session. I believe that that Bill was proposed as being suitable for detailed scrutiny off the Floor of the House, but, unfortunately, that could not be agreed.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, does my noble friend the Leader of the House agree that one of the main contributing factors to the time taken both in Committee and on Report is that there are long debates in Committee, after which the amendment is withdrawn, but then the debate is repeated almost word for word on Report?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, that problem has certainly seemed to arise fairly regularly in Bills with which I have been involved. I suspect that it is a matter that could be looked at if we had the capacity to consider the procedures and workings of this House in a general way.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, this has been a most unusual Session; indeed, the House has worked extremely hard, especially towards the latter part of it. Does the noble Baroness agree that the House has, on the whole, done its job extremely well? Will the noble Baroness take just a little bit of responsibility for the way that the Government have treated this House? Further, will she reconsider her answer to my noble friend Lord Cranborne? Is it not a fact that there have been a record number of amendments made to Bills brought forward by the Government? Bills have had their Second Readings months before being brought to the House for their Committee stages. There have also been massive gaps between the first and second days in Committee. All this has arisen because government Ministers have failed to make up their minds and decide what it is that they have to do. It culminated in, for example, over 100 pages of government amendments being tabled to the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill. Can the noble Baroness assure the House that that will not happen again?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I can certainly tell the noble Lord that I was responding to a point from his noble friend Lord Cranborne about the total number of amendments that have been

1235
passed. I hope that I was fair in my resume. As I said—I repeat it—the statistics are not produced in a form to show which are government amendments and which are others. A large number of amendments were tabled, for example, to the financial services legislation, which was referred to earlier.
As my noble friend the Chief Whip says so often when these matters are raised, this is a listening Government. I challenge the noble Lord's assertion that this is an unusual Session. At the risk of being repetitive, I refer to the statistics for third Sessions, going back to 1981–82. I have been challenged to recite those statistics. In the 1981–82 third Session, 46 Bills were passed: in 1985–86, 49 Bills; in 1989–90, 34 Bills; in 1994–95, 37 Bills, and we expect this year to pass 39 Bills.

China: Human Rights Dialogue
3 p.m.
Lord Avebury Lord Avebury asked Her Majesty's Government:
What were the results of the human rights dialogue held between the United Kingdom and China in October.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, the fifth round of the bilateral human rights dialogue took place in London between 16th and 18th October. We discussed our concerns on a wide range of human rights issues. Although there was little progress on some issues such as the Falun Gong and freedom of religion, there was greater Chinese willingness to provide more detailed responses to our concerns and there were positive outcomes, including Chinese willingness to sign a memorandum of understanding with Mary Robinson on the provision of human rights technical assistance on 20th November; to accept in principle visits by UN special rapporteurs; and to provide further information on the list of individual cases submitted by the Government.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, does not the noble Baroness agree that China is going backwards, with the repression of the democracy movement, the severe persecution of the Falun Gong and the persecution of anyone who tries to uphold the Tibetan identity? Among the individual cases that the Government raised with the Chinese during the dialogue, did the noble Baroness include the five nuns who committed suicide in Drapchi prison because they could no longer endure the torture to which they were subjected?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we accept that there are many challenges in relation to China's human rights record. The fact that we are having this dialogue is important because it enables us, perhaps for the first time, to have an in-depth conversation about these difficult and painful issues. I do not know the precise names of the five nuns that the noble Lord
1236
mentioned, but in relation to Tibetan and other prisoners we have specifically raised cases and talked about them in depth. I shall certainly write to the noble Lord about the case of the five nuns.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, the Minister mentioned the Falun Gong. Is it not the case that numerous other religious bodies, whether Christian, Islamic or Buddhist, suffer constant harassment and persecution and that sometimes long prison sentences are imposed on their members for expressing their conscientious beliefs? Will the Government continue to raise these matters, regardless of the answer they receive from the Government of China, because until China ceases this kind of activity it cannot be accepted into the civilised body of nations?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I reassure the noble Lord that Her Majesty's Government will continue to raise these issues in relation to human rights. They are matters of deep concern and the noble Lord is right to raise them. However, as I said earlier to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, the dialogue gives us an opportunity to do this in a specific and direct way.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, given the still deteriorating Chinese human rights record—I believe that we all recognise that—can the noble Baroness assure us that the European Union arms embargo is still in place? Are we following the same rules as our European partners? Now that the US Congress has more or less given an unconditional green light to permanent normal trade relations with China, how does that affect our attitude to trade with China in the context of human rights?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I reassure the noble Lord in relation to the arms embargo. As he knows, the EU imposed an embargo on the export of arms to China following the events of Tiananmen Square in June 1989. The embargo is not a full scope one. The UK's interpretation of it was set out by my late honourable friend Mr Fatchett in his reply to Parliament on 3rd June 1998. We do not sell any of the items he set out that would contravene that interpretation. Our interpretation of the embargo covers lethal weapons such as machine guns, large calibre weapons, bombs, torpedoes, rockets etcetera—the whole list.
In relation to our own policy we have taken a robust stance. As I said earlier, we continue to raise the issue of human rights. I hear what the noble Lord says in relation to the way in which our friends the Americans are going, but I reassure him that Her Majesty's Government's policy remains the same in relation to trade, arms and raising human rights issues.
Lord Clarke of Hampstead: My Lords, in her initial Answer my noble friend referred to one of the positive elements of the dialogue. Will she go further and give us some examples of other benefits that have come from the dialogue?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, as I said earlier, the dialogue has enabled us to raise in depth a wide range of problems. It has created a conducive environment for a range of co-operative projects. For example, this year alone we are running a range of rule of law projects, including the role of defence lawyers, the strengthening of a proposed new evidence law and human rights training for young lawyers. We also have projects tackling issues such as child trafficking and promoting human rights awareness. We have encouraged China to move forward in co-operating with international human rights mechanisms. For instance, China signed the two UN human rights covenants in 1997 and 1998; and we expect them to sign a MOU with the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Mary Robinson, on 20th November. Those are just some of the matters we have been able to achieve during the process I mentioned.

Business
3.6 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lady Hayman will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement which is being made in another place on flooding and flood defence.

Colchester Borough Council Bill [H.L.]
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the promoters of the Bill have leave to suspend any further proceedings thereon in order to proceed with it, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that notice of their intention to do so is lodged in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments not later than 12 noon on Monday 27th November and that all fees due on or before that day have been paid;
That the Bill be deposited in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments not later than noon on the second sitting day in the next Session with a declaration annexed, signed by the agent, stating that the Bill is the same in every respect as the Bill at the last stage of the proceedings thereon in this House in the present Session;
That the proceedings on the Bill in the next Session of Parliament be pro forma in regard to every stage through which the Bill has passed in the present Session, and that no new fees be charged to such stages;
That the Private Business Standing Orders apply to the Bill in the next Session only in regard to any stage through which the Bill has not passed during the present Session.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and a message was ordered to be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill
3.8 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Offences relating to fur farming]:
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 5, leave out ("or primarily").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as most of your Lordships were not able to be present at earlier stages of the Bill—not least because the Committee stage was held in Grand Committee in the Moses Room—it may help if I explain the background to the amendment.
Within the past couple of years the Government have formulated a novel doctrine; namely, that it is morally and politically correct to kill animals for meat, however expensive and esoteric that meat may be; it is morally and politically correct to kill them for the purposes of scientific research; to kill them for their musk glands from which expensive scent is manufactured; and to kill them for the leather from which expensive shoes, handbags and furniture can be made; but it is politically and morally incorrect to kill them for fur—although fur is rather less expensive and luxurious than many of the other items I have mentioned—unless the fur is a by-product of meat production. In other words, it is all right to sell rabbit fur provided that most of the profits from rearing the rabbits come from the rabbit meat. But what happens when, as in France at present and possibly other countries, the value of rabbit meat slumps and the value of their pelts rises?
The noble Lord, Lord Luke, posed just such a question in Grand Committee to which the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, replied.
"It would be for the courts to decide on the meaning of 'primary' in particular cases'.—[Official Report, 17/10/00; col. CWH9.]
She went on to imply that one could reliably count upon the courts to interpret the law in a sensible manner. But is it wise to base the creation of a new criminal offence upon such optimistic assumptions? Surely it would be more sensible to avoid ambiguity and the possibility of unintended consequences by restricting the draconian new law to cases where the animal is bred solely for fur and nothing else. I beg to move.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Hayman): My Lords, as the noble Lord said, we had a debate in Grand Committee which reflected some of the fundamental arguments on the Bill to which any Member of your Lordships' House could have contributed had he so wished. We also had a debate at Second Reading about the basis on which the Government believe that it is not consistent with a proper value and respect for animal life to allow the slaughter for their fur of animals kept specifically for that purpose. That is the fundamental basis of the Bill. Whether it is appropriate to outlaw that form of farming on grounds of public morality and ethical standards is an

1239
area of fundamental disagreement among some Members of your Lordships' House and another place.
There has been great debate about it. There are disagreements. However, the Government are firmly of the view that it is justified and that the arrangements in respect of those farmers affected have been made on the proper timescale with the appropriate compensation arrangements. At the urging of noble Lords, during passage of the Bill through your Lordships' House, we have considered that issue carefully. We have taken on board the issues raised by the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee of your Lordships' House. We have amended the Bill to ensure that the compensation arrangements cover income as well.
However, we cannot accept the amendment. It would undermine fundamentally the purpose of the Bill. It would remove from the scope of the Bill any animals kept primarily for slaughter for the value of the fur where there was any by-product. It would not matter what the nature of the by-product was—for example, whether it was meat for human or animal consumption, or animals kept for show, or stud animals, or those kept for oils or fats for cosmetics, lubricants or any possible usage. If there were any byproduct it would mean that the animal was not being kept solely for its fur. In effect, a coach and horses would be driven through the main purpose of the Bill. The size of the loophole that the amendment would create is not acceptable to the Government. It would undermine the primary purpose.
I accept that the noble Lord and others may genuinely believe that this primary purpose is not a correct one. We have argued that out. I believe that we have had proper scrutiny of what we are doing. The Government have taken on board the concerns expressed. I believe that now the National Farmers Union and the affected farmers believe that appropriate steps have been taken. On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that not unexpected reply. I think that she fails to appreciate that in this country mink—I believe that they are the Government's target—have no usable by-products. In the United States I understand that after the fur has been removed, mink meat can be used for fertiliser and possibly pet food; and mink oil, for some reason, is extremely valuable. I was told this morning that Jerry Hall uses it on her hair—which gives food for thought. If the amendment were accepted, it would still not prevent the Government from banning mink farming. However, I do not think that I shall move the Government or the House. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 2:
Clause 1, page 1, line 17, leave out ("£00,000") and insert (level 5 on the standard scale").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this simple amendment is the most important amendment of the day. In a nutshell, it would reduce the maximum fine for infringement from a vicious £20,000 to £5,000, although that latter figure would tend to rise with inflation as fines on levels 1 to 5 do.
It is not a wrecking amendment. Some might wish that it were; but it will not have much practical effect since no one is likely to rush out and start a new, illegal fur farm on the basis of slightly lower maximum penalties. The amendment would provide the first opportunity for either House of Parliament to stand up and be counted, to demonstrate their distaste for this illiberal Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I accept, as the noble Lord says, that this is not a wrecking amendment. It looks at the appropriate level of maximum line that should be available to the courts on the offence being proved of keeping animals for their fur.
First, I make clear that, if there were successful convictions, the maximum of £20,000 is per offence of keeping animals for fur and not per animal kept. It is the Government's view that the effect of the amendment—it would reduce the maximum fine to £5,000—would not act as sufficient deterrent to the keeping of animals for slaughter for their fur once the ban is in force. I understand that the number of mink kept can range substantially from a few thousand animals up to 30,000 or more per farm. Each animal is worth approximately £20 and in the Government's view a maximum fine of £5,000 would not act as a sufficient deterrent.
I should make clear that £20,000 is a maximum fine and the court would have the discretion to impose a lesser penalty if it deemed that to be appropriate. I suggest to the House that it is sensible to leave that as the maximum, appreciating that the courts would take a proportionate view according to the scale of the business conducted. On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her, as always, considered and emollient reply. I do not thank the Official Opposition for their silence. It is extraordinary that a party which professes to oppose political correctness sits firmly glued to the Bench when there is a chance to demonstrate its professed aims. None the less, it is a matter for that party.
I should dearly like to divide the House. However, there are no more than 25 noble Lords in the Chamber. The remainder have not heard the arguments for and against the issue. It would be foolish, therefore, to divide the House now. I shall postpone pressing the matter until the next stage when the House will be full for the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill and the national press will be present in force. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 3:
Clause 7, page 4, line 16, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
("(2) Subject to subsection (3), sections 1 to 4 of this Act shall come into force on such day as the appropriate Ministers acting jointly may by order appoint.
(2A) Different days may be appointed under this section for different purposes.
(2B) No order shall be made under this section—

(a) before 1st January 2003, and

(b) unless, in the opinion of the appropriate Ministers, those persons engaged in fur farming in Great Britain, when taken as a whole, have failed to meet the then applicable Recommendation Concerning Fur Animals adopted by the Standing Committee of the European Convention for the Protection of Animals Kept for Farming Purposes.

(2C) In reaching their opinion under paragraph (b) of subsection (2B), the appropriate Ministers may seek advice from such persons as appear to the appropriate Ministers to have knowledge or experience of animal welfare.
(2D) If the appropriate Ministers propose to make an order under this section they shall lay before each House of Parliament a document setting out the reasons for doing so, and no order shall be made until the expiry of the period of sixty days beginning with the day on which the document was laid.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment has two purposes. First, the Government constantly affirm their determination to harmonise our laws and practices more closely with those of other EU nations. Acceptance of this amendment would demonstrate their commitment to such harmonisation. Secondly, nearly all noble Lords, including myself, deplore avoidable cruelty to animals. Unfortunately, a number of noble Lords have been supporting the Bill in the wholly mistaken assumption that its sole purpose is greatly to reduce such cruelty. If that were the case, the Government would accept the amendment. I suspect that they will not do so. We shall wait and see. I beg to move.
Lord Luke: My Lords, I assure the noble Lord, Lord Monson, that I was not asleep on the Bench, but, having heard the Question earlier this afternoon, I did not want to repeat my speech three times.
I have every sympathy with the views expressed by the noble Lord, as my comments at Second Reading and in Grand Committee clearly show. However, I have discussed the three amendments with the National Farmers Union, which represents the 12 fur farmers who will be deprived of their legitimate livelihood by the Bill and who have been unable to trade sensibly or develop their businesses over the past two years. The NFU has assured me that it is satisfied with the state of the Bill as it stands, including the Government's commitment to adequate compensation. We therefore do not support the amendments.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, on these Benches we support the swiftest possible passage of the Bill through the House. As far as we are aware, the
1242
amendment would merely delay the process and would be costly and bureaucratic. We therefore cannot support it.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, is correct about the technical aspects of the amendments. They would add unnecessary time and process to the business of implementing a measure that has been fully scrutinised and carefully drawn up, with implementation dates that are appropriate to an orderly run-down rather than a precipitate one.
The noble Lord, Lord Monson, went to the heart of the issue, which is whether the Bill is aimed solely, or even primarily, to use the terms of the Bill, at animal welfare issues. Those who have kept up with the debate as the Bill has passed through the House know that it is not the Government's contention that the aim of the measure is to implement high animal welfare standards. Those are within European competence. We work with our colleagues in Europe to ensure that the welfare of farmed animals is properly protected and that there are high standards of animal welfare. Those provisions extend to fur or rabbit farming just as to other areas of farming.
The Bill is not about the level or implementation of animal welfare standards; it is about whether, at the beginning of the 21st century, it is appropriate to keep animals with a view to their slaughter solely or primarily to exploit the value of their fur. That moral issue goes over and above welfare considerations. In our view, fur farming is not consistent with a proper value and respect for animal life, and there is insufficient public benefit from the activity to justify destroying that life or breeding animals for that purpose. That is why we believe that it is appropriate to strike at the root of fur farming rather than simply to take action on welfare conditions. We shall continue to work nationally and in Europe to ensure high standards across the range of welfare concerns for farmed animals.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I am grateful to all those who have spoken. I am particularly grateful to the Minister for confirming that the purpose of the Bill is not to implement high welfare standards and that it is essentially doctrinal—I can think of no better word.
I take issue with the Minister's assertion that the Bill has been fully scrutinised. A Bill that has been examined only in Grand Committee in the Moses Room, when very few noble Lords turn up, cannot be said to have been fully scrutinised.
I am aware that the NFU and the core of beleaguered fur farmers who have been attacked by sinister individuals in black balaclavas year after year favour the Bill, as the noble Lord, Lord Luke, said. They see no other end that would give them even the slightest justice. However, the interests of the NFU and the fur farmers are not automatically the same as the national interest. The Bill sets a terrible precedent. The Government could decide that a certain practice of which some Ministers—not necessarily all—disapprove is morally unacceptable and they could ban it by using their massive parliamentary majority.

1243
The Opposition have been short-sighted in concentrating solely on what the NFU says. I agree that the amended Bill is a reasonable answer in the short term, but the precedent that it sets is dangerous for the longer term. However, in the absence of any support, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Disqualifications Bill
3.26 p.m.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee. —(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Amendment of section 1(1)(e) of the Disqualification Acts]:
Lord Lamont of Lerwick Lord Lamont of Lerwick moved Amendment No. 1:
Clause 1, page 1, line 5, leave out from beginning to ("section") in line 6.
The noble Lord said: The Bill will remove the disqualification from membership of the House of Commons and the Northern Ireland Assembly for Members of either House of the Irish Parliament. It is a small but profoundly important and far-reaching Bill that has not been without controversy.
Amendments Nos. 1, 3 and 37 would remove from the Bill the repeal of the disqualification for the House of Commons. They would allow Members of the Irish Parliament to be Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly but not of the House of Commons.
The amendments allow us to debate the issues at the heart of some of the objections to the Bill. Many of us have grave doubts about the principle of being a member of two sovereign Parliaments simultaneously, although it might be possible to be a member of a sovereign Parliament and of a subsidiary Parliament in another country. One has to swear two different oaths. The Irish Parliament does not have an exactly analogous procedure to the taking of the oath in the House of Commons but there is something similar. One would have two different sets of loyalties in two different Parliaments.
The amendments would allow the Bill to go ahead, because Members of either House of the southern Ireland Parliament could still sit in the Northern Ireland Assembly but not in the House of Commons.
With the greatest possible respect, the Minister failed to tell us at Second Reading why the Bill has been introduced. That remains a great mystery. It was certainly a considerable mystery during the debates in the House of Commons. The timing of the Bill has been mysterious. The Government say that there has been plenty of time for consultation. The noble and
1244
learned Lord, Lord Falconer, said that the matter had been given considerable consideration in the House of Commons. I believe that that is a rather elegant way of describing an all-night sitting and a Second Reading, followed immediately by a Committee stage but no Report stage. I do not call that normal consideration of a Bill. The Bill was published on 22nd December last year and all proceedings on it took place in the House of Commons at the end of January.
With regard to the principle of two people sitting in two sovereign Parliaments, one wonders: who wants it and why is it necessary? When the noble and learned Lord last spoke on this matter, he presented it very much as a tidying-up measure to bring into line the provisions for the Parliament of Ireland with Commonwealth legislatures. Leaving aside the fact that Ireland has never been in the Commonwealth, I stand to be corrected by the Minister but I am not aware of an example of a person sitting simultaneously in a Commonwealth legislature and the House of Commons. Therefore, I was not convinced by this being presented as simply a tidying-up measure.
I have read that people in the Dail do not want this legislation. I have read editorials in Irish newspapers opposing this legislation. I know that the Ulster Unionists do not want it. I know that Mr Trimble does not want it. What is its purpose? When the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, spoke on the matter before he made no reference to the Good Friday agreement or the Belfast agreement. Indeed, those agreements make no mention of this measure. One had one's suspicions, and I am bound to say that my suspicions were increased somewhat.
We debated this Bill on the penultimate sitting day before the Summer Recess. I believe that the Minister was of the opinion that I considered there to be a conspiracy behind the legislation. If I had held any such belief, it was confirmed somewhat when, shortly after this House rose, or perhaps shortly before, Sinn Fein published a policy document (which I did not see) recommending that all Westminster MPs from Northern Ireland should also be Members of the Dail. The words "Sinn Fein" never escaped the lips of the Minister when he justified this Bill; nor, so far as I can see, were those words mentioned in the debates in another place.
It is being proposed that a person should have simultaneous membership of both sovereign Parliaments. That proposal is not identical but bears a resemblance to what is being proposed in the Sinn Fein policy document. Today the Minister owes the House a convincing explanation as to why this legislation is necessary. It has had a curious profile throughout its parliamentary passage. It was rushed through the House of Commons and rushed through its Committee stage. It was then delayed until the latter days of July when it was suddenly reintroduced here.
So far as I can see, the legislation does not command wide support in Northern Ireland. Therefore, as it bears a close resemblance to proposals put forward by Sinn Fein, I believe that the Minister must convince us that it is not being enacted only to satisfy Sinn Fein.
If it is possible for one to be a member of two sovereign Parliaments, or if one can be elected, let us say, to a Northern Ireland seat and be a Member of the House of Commons and also a Member of the Dail, that is moving a long way down the road towards implying that Northern Ireland is equidistant from both the House of Commons and the Dail. It implies that both Parliaments have a similar entitlement to pronounce and intervene in the affairs of Northern Ireland, leaving the suspicion that this is part of the process of merging Northern and southern Ireland. The Minister may say that that is a strong allegation. However, he has given no convincing explanation as to why the measure is being brought forward. I can see no possible explanation, and I tabled my amendment in the way that I did in order to make that point.
Lord Dubs: Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may ask him two questions so that I fully understand the thrust of his amendment. First, he referred to the House of Commons. Does his amendment imply that membership of this place would also be barred?
Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, I am trying to remember what happened some time ago. I believe that Seamus Mallon, Leader of the SDLP, Deputy First Minister and Member of Parliament, was at one point offered a seat in the Senate in Dublin but had to decline because he was barred from doing so. If I am right in my somewhat hazy recollection of events from the past, does the noble Lord believe that it would be inappropriate for Seamus Mallon to be a member of the Senate in Dublin?
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord for raising his second point. With regard to his first point, I should of course know but I believe that I am right in saying that my amendments do not include the House of Lords. Later I shall table an amendment which touches on the House of Lords. However, the principle behind the amendment is to retain the House of Commons disqualification, thus removing the part of the Bill that applies to disqualification for membership of the House of Commons if one is a member of another Parliament.
With regard to the point raised by the noble Lord in relation to Seamus Mallon, as I understand it the law was altered in 1998 to allow him to take his seat in the Northern Ireland Assembly. I am not sure whether he ever sat simultaneously in the Senate and in the House of Commons. I believe that he probably did not, but I hope that I may be enlightened on that matter while the debate proceeds.
I am also unsure as to whether Seamus Mallon was an elected or an appointed member of the Senate. I believe that he was probably the latter, and that makes a considerable difference to the argument. However, I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising the point and I hope that the matter may be made crystal clear because it is germane to everything in the Bill. I beg to move.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I understand that Seamus Mallon was, indeed, appointed as a member of the Senate in 1982. However, he was not elected to the House of Commons until some years after he had left the Senate. During his time in the Senate some controversy arose as to whether he could be a member of the then Assembly in Northern Ireland. The matter went to the courts, but in the end the answer was that he could not.
However, that is irrelevant to this Bill except by allusion because, as my noble friend said, the Bill does two things. It permits a member of the Irish House of Commons to sit for a United Kingdom constituency in Westminster at the same time and it also makes it legal for an Irish MP to sit at the same time in the Northern Ireland Assembly as well as in the Dail. My noble friend's amendment draws our attention specifically to the question of dual membership of the two Houses of Commons—that is, another place and the Dail.
My noble friend also pointed out that this Bill was sold to your Lordships at Second Reading as the correction of a legal anomaly that had somehow entered our law because of the position of Commonwealth countries. Ireland was a member of the Commonwealth until 1949 but left voluntarily. Discussion is taking place as to whether it might return at some point, but I do not believe that at present that is seriously on the table. But, in any event, that would alter the position in a whole series of very important respects.
I do not believe that the Commonwealth analogy stands up to any form of examination. I shall return to that on a later amendment, which is more directly related to it. For the moment, I merely assert that the idea that this Bill somehow corrects an anomaly by bringing Ireland into line with the Commonwealth in that respect is rubbish.
My noble friend also drew attention to the fact that we have not had answers to the two most important questions: first, who wants this change; and secondly, why are the Government prepared to expend scarce parliamentary time in trying to achieve it?
As regards representing two constituencies in two parliaments at the same time, the first matter that I should point out is that nobody in this country can represent two different constituencies at the same time in the House of Commons. It is not allowed; it is illegal. It is legally possible to stand in a general election for two or more different constituencies, and in days gone by, that was regularly done. But then, as now, if someone happened to be elected for two separate constituencies, he would have to choose one or the other before taking his seat in another place. So you cannot sit as a Member for two separate constituencies in the House of Commons; yet this proposition is that people should sit for two separate constituencies in two different parliaments in different jurisdictions.
I looked up the last person to achieve that feat of winning two constituencies in the same Westminster general election and it was Mr O'Brien. That is not, I hasten to add, Mr Mike O'Brien, the Home Office

1247
Minister who helped to recommend this Bill to another place, but a Mr William O'Brien. Interestingly enough, it was in southern Ireland, before the creation of the Republic, when southern Ireland was represented in the House of Commons, along with the rest of the United Kingdom. That Mr William O'Brien was elected in the 1910 general election to serve in the House of Commons for both Cork City and the county constituency of Cork North East. The Committee may be interested to hear that he elected to serve for the city of Cork, and another Member was duty elected to serve the county constituency.
Nobody, to my knowledge, in recent years has even tried to repeat that success by standing for two constituencies at once. But if a candidate were successful in doing so, he, like Mr O'Brien, would have to choose which one he wished to represent.
In passing, I should draw the Home Office's attention to what I believe to be the real anomaly in this particular situation, which occurred to me while pondering the Bill. I should not be surprised to find that some supporter of a specialist minority cause—proportional representation springs to mind, but there are others—stands at a general election in a large number of constituencies so that although he could not, in any circumstances, expect to be elected for any one of those constituencies, he might assemble enough votes over a large number of constituencies to claim that, in aggregate, he should have been elected. That would be quite an argument. But, of course, the correction of that anomaly, which is genuine, is not possible under this Bill. Other legislation would be needed for that.
I return to the main argument. It may be said that the so-called "dual management" is allowed in that a person can serve in both Westminster and the European Parliament. I understand that the Labour Party dislikes people serving in both Westminster and the European Parliament and puts its own Members under great pressure in that respect. So that is not an argument which Ministers are likely to advance but in any case, that is a wholly different matter.
However, it is significant that neither Ministers nor anyone else is suggesting that people from any other member state of the European Union except Ireland should he able to stand in the two different member states' parliaments. This proposal is special to Ireland alone.
So who wants it? I have no evidence—and the Minister has produced none—that any English, Welsh or Scottish MP wants to sit at the same time for an Irish constituency in the Irish Parliament. Ulster Unionist MPs are unlikely to want to sit in the Dail and even if they wished to do so, they would be unlikely to be elected because, as we know, Protestants have been substantially eased out of the country since the Republic was formed.
The SDLP or even Alliance Members might conceivably be elected for two constituencies in the two countries but, frankly, I do not think that it is their style to try that kind of trick.
1248
On the other hand it is exactly what members of Sinn Fein want. One of the very few people to welcome this legislation when it was first proposed was Gerry Adams, the president of Sinn Fein, who said it was a "significant move" and "a breakthrough" and things like that. Of course, members of Sinn Fein would love to stand for a constituency in the Republic and for another in Northern Ireland. They would not, of course, take their seats in Westminster. They do not do so. They refuse to take their seats because t would mean that they must recognise the legitimacy of the United Kingdom. In those circumstances, they would sit in the Dail and then claim to represent part of the United Kingdom there, as well as the constituency for which they were elected within the Republic. That claim would be made easier by the fact that because of Ireland's proportional representation system, under which four or five Members represent each of the constituencies, they would share the representation of a large constituency in the Dail but be the sole representative of the constituency in the United Kingdom for which they were elected.
I am told by Northern Ireland sources that that is exactly the point of the Bill. I am further told that Mr Pat Doherty is suggested as the first candidate; that he wants to stand in West Tyrone in the United Kingdom and, subsequently, in Donegal in the Republic for a seat in the Dail. In that way, he hopes to be able to claim to represent West Tyrone in the Dail and that, I think, would be a very grave matter indeed.
But I do not doubt that if we were to agree to this Bill, it would not be long before Mr Adams and, for that matter, Mr Martin McGuinness and others no doubt, were looking for seats in the Republic so that they could claim to represent West Belfast and Mid Ulster, and wherever else, in the Dail.
At present it is said in Sinn Fein propaganda, although not by Mr Adams himself, as far as I know, that its members do not wish to do that. But I do not think that it would be long before they would see the advantages to them and their propaganda of so doing. That prospect appals me as a negation of democracy and of national sovereignty. It was no part of the. Good Friday agreement, which is otherwise regarded by the Government as virtually Holy Writ. But in this case, it seems to me that it runs flat counter to the recognition of the rights of the majority in Northern Ireland to decide in which country they wish to live and it cuts right across the new all-Ireland institutions which were set up by the Good Friday/Belfast agreement. They are flourishing at present or, at least, are in action at present and doing their best to flourish as much as they can.
What about the second question: why are the Government proposing this measure to Parliament? The Prime Minister sometimes displays a naivety about Irish matters which can seem appealing from time to time, if you are sufficiently distant from them. On the other hand, the Taoiseach is a shrewd polit ician and negotiator. The Secretary of State, Mr Mandelson, is renowned for very careful thought and calculation in all that he does. I cannot believe that he has not realised the effect of passing this measure.

1249
Perhaps there is a secret plan to ease Northern Ireland gradually into the Republic through this form of back door. If so, are the British Government a party to it or are they just being näive? I do not know the answer to that question. I suspect that the noble and learned Lord who is to respond to the debate does not know the answer either, at least at present. I do not blame him. As I understand it, he has picked up the brief comparatively recently and is obviously relying on his instructions. I do not suppose that he was involved in the decisions on the Bill last December. In some respects, it would be surprising if he had been able to give it much thought in the past week or two. If I were in his shoes I would be thinking a little more about the Dome. If this was a defence case that he had been asked to put forward in court, I suspect that he would have suggested to his client that he plead guilty and have done with it.
As I said, I do not know the answer to the question. However, throughout the proceedings today and at later stages, we shall do our best to tease it out. I do not see why the Government should want to permit what seems to me to be a constitutional outrage. Even if the Government wish, I do not see why Parliament should agree to it. Apart from anything else, if we were to do so it would betray the Good Friday agreement and would set a bomb under our democracy.
Amendment No. 33 tabled in my name in this grouping is a rather different, specialist amendment. It suggests that if somebody who sits for a United Kingdom seat should later find himself elected also to the Dail, he should submit himself to a by-election in his United Kingdom constituency to confirm his membership of the United Kingdom Parliament with his constituents before taking up his seat in the Dail.
It is sometimes said that anything is possible in this country, provided it has been done before. It is also said that there is a precedent for everything and that therefore everything is possible. There is a sort of precedent here. I refer to the 19th century practice under which a Member of Parliament who was appointed a Minister had to return to his constituency on appointment and have his membership confirmed by a by-election. The constitutional theory behind that was that appointment as a Minister would affect his ability to represent his constituents. They therefore had a right to confirm or withhold his right to be their representative. That is an excellent constitutional doctrine. However, it fell foul of the fact that it narrowed the ability of the Prime Minister to appoint the best possible Ministers to the government. For that reason, it was dropped. I do not propose its resuscitation. However, I believe that for this Bill it would be a highly relevant procedure to put in place.
The individuals concerned, who would represent two different constituencies in two different sovereign parliaments, would have two completely separate sets of loyalties, both to two lots of constituents and, indeed, to two sovereign states. In those circumstances, it is only reasonable that the constituents of the individual as a United Kingdom Member of Parliament should have the opportunity to
1250
confirm his or her position in that respect before the individual takes up the other appointment. I commend the amendment to the Committee.
Lord Desai: The noble Lord, Lord Cope, somewhat spoilt the first half of his speech by speaking to his amendment. Unlike the constraint proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, the amendment is a mild constraint on what the Bill attempts to do. The noble Lord, Lord Lamont, proposes that a person cannot sit in the Dail and the House of Commons at the same time. However, all that the noble Lord, Lord Cope, seems to be asking is that if he or she does so, that person would have to submit to a by-election. That sounds absolutely fine; it is an exemplary measure. Perhaps the Government should think of accepting the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Cope. It would be a nice discipline.
The noble Lord referred to the qualification of citizens of other countries which are members of the European Union to contest election to the House of Commons. At present they are not allowed to do so. However, that may be a violation of a statute or acquis communautaire in the European Union. One should not be able to prevent a citizen of another European country standing for election to the House of Commons. I should like to know whether or not that is the case. I know that it is possible to stand for the European Parliament from any country within the European Union. I do not know whether there is any legal provision not in violation of the European—
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: I thank the noble Lord for giving way. The position is that one cannot stand to be a member of a European Union legislature and the House of Commons. The question raised is interesting. The front of the Bill contains the declaration that its provisions are compatible with the Human Rights Act and the European convention. However, on the face of it, one would have thought the provision discriminatory.
Lord Desai: I thank the noble Lord. He has made my point for me. It cannot be the case that we can prevent citizens of France, Belgium or anywhere else standing for election to the House of Commons and being a member of another parliament and this Parliament. It may be illegal to represent two constituencies within the United Kingdom in the House of Commons. However, there cannot be a rule against someone representing two different constituencies in two different countries in two different parliaments, so long as the electorate agrees. It has nothing to do with anyone else.
I believe that the right way to proceed on this matter is not to say that exception is made for Ireland but that exception is made for all members of the EU. The whole problem would then be resolved.
4 p.m.
Viscount Cranborne: As always, I am most interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Desai. During my short time in this place I can think of no

1251
intervention that he has made to which I have not listened with both interest and amusement, let alone profit to my own knowledge. However, I find it difficult—it gives me great pain to say this—to follow his remarks. I simply cannot agree with him. The noble Lord may remember that when some of her courtiers wanted to wear foreign decorations which they had been given, Queen Elizabeth I was heard to observe that she did not like her dogs to wear foreign collars. That is precisely what this Bill is about, and, indeed, what my noble friend Lord Lamont talks about in his amendment, which I enthusiastically support.
I am sure that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe, as my noble friend Lord Lamont stated, that it is not possible for a Member of this sovereign Parliament to sit also as a member of another sovereign parliament of a country which is a member of the European Union. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood, proved when he stood for an Italian Euro-constituency, it is possible for a citizen of this country to stand for election to the European Parliament for a constituency in another country which is a member of the European Union. As I understand it, the rationale—though it is questionable—is that the European Parliament is not a sovereign parliament and that this Parliament, perhaps by the skin of its teeth, still is.
I return to Queen Elizabeth I and the nub of my noble friend's amendment. For those of us who believe in the central position of Parliament in our national life—a position which is increasingly under threat for all sorts of reasons which need not detain us here—it becomes difficult to accept that dogs can wear two collars. Whatever the difference of opinion may be about the Oath (even a cursory reading of the extensive debates in another place on this Bill show this) and whatever the doubts about its present wording, nevertheless it constrains all those who swear it—Members of both Houses—under severe implied threat to devote themselves to the national interests of this country.
It is difficult to believe that the present law fulfils what I consider to be an overriding consideration. After all, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, pointed out at Second Reading, Members of Commonwealth legislatures are allowed to sit in this Parliament. It is that fact which allowed the noble and learned Lord at Second Reading to make clear that he regarded this Bill as merely a tidying-up operation, setting right an anomaly which does not apply to the Republic of Ireland when it applies to the Commonwealth. I regard the provision which allows the Commonwealth dual mandate—to put it in shorthand—to be an anomaly in itself.
I was brought up in what might be thought of as an imperial household. I well remember, particularly in the 1950s and 1960s, arguments as to whether it was right that colonial assumptions should persist in the modern world. With the increasing growth of independence among the countries of the former empire and the development of a Commonwealth which included many republics, particularly the
1252
example of India in 1947, should this imperial Parliament assume such a high degree of supremacy that, by implication, any other parliament was inferior? It was thought that there was not an equal mandate in both Parliaments. It was perhaps that assumption more than anything else at the time, which enabled us, with a sense of effortless superiority which was easier then than now, to assume that so inferior were other Commonwealth parliaments, that no equal dual mandate would be implied if one were a Member of a Commonwealth parliament and of this Parliament. I utterly reject such a suggestion.
It is only right and proper—I am perhaps trespassing into the territory of a later amendment but it is germane to the argument raised by the noble and learned Lord at Second Reading and which my noble friend is endeavouring to address in this amendment—to say that, just because the Commonwealth membership applies, therefore it should apply to everybody else. It seems to me, particularly now, that it is right for Commonwealth countries to be regarded as the equal of this Parliament; indeed, it is the essence of their status of independence that that should be so. Therefore, it is a relic of imperial days that this extraordinary anomaly should persist and the sooner it is put right, the better. I fail to see how the noble and learned Lord can use the argument he did at Second Reading and it is all the more sensible therefore for my noble friend to put forward his argument against the dual mandate.
We know that, even in this global world, which has become such a cliché in every political speech, nations still have different interests. Those nations which are fortunate enough to be governed by genuine parliamentary systems must be sure that their members have a clear interest in promoting the interests of their nation. If there is a dual mandate in those sovereign parliaments, there must be a question among members who are members of another Parliament as to where their true interests lie. It is entirely wrong, as a matter of principle, that this Bill should be put forward in this way.
I have already tried to draw a distinction between this Parliament and the European Parliament. It is right and proper that my noble friend should draw a distinction between this Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly. The Northern Ireland Assembly was created, at least in part, in a genuine effort to try to ensure that a settlement applied in Northern Ireland which enabled both the nationalist and the unionist traditions to co-exist and prosper together. That cannot be so here. At the risk of being invidious, we do not have to look far back—sub specie aeternitatis—in the history of the 20th century to see just how often other countries find themselves at odds with the interests of this country. A case in point is the Republic of Ireland.
I speak with huge affection for the Republic; my mother's family come from County Limerick so it would be surprising if I did not. But we have to remember that His Majesty King George VI's Ambassador to the Third Reich conveyed the sympathies of the Irish Government to the Third

1253
Reich on the death of the Führer in 1945. I hope that the arguments of those days are now water under the bridge, that we can forget them and look to the future. But that is the most glaring example, not very long ago and when this country was at its greatest moment of peril, when we find that the Republic of Ireland had a different agenda from our own. It is therefore peculiar, to say the least, for the Government to reject my noble friend's amendment.
It is only sensible, at the beginning of this Committee stage, for me to support my noble friends Lord Cope and Lord Lamont, in their inquiries, in the gentlest of terms, as to the extraordinary circumstances surrounding the introduction of this Bill. I worked my way, with a sense of mounting tedium, through the extensive Official Report records of the debates in another place. At Second Reading the noble and learned Lord—who always tries to help the House—had constraints put upon him. During the course of proceedings in another place, just as here, no information whatsoever was given about who had asked for this Bill, under what circumstances and why. The only hint that your Lordships' House was given was by the noble Lord the Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms who said that he had been told that this Bill was part of the choreography of the Belfast agreement. It was not part of the Bill but part of its choreography.
That hint demands an explanation from the Government. What is it all about? Our suspicions must be hugely increased by the extraordinary timetable of the progress, if that is the word, of this Bill through Parliament. There was the extraordinary passage of a Bill, which allegedly was not urgent, as confirmed by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State's remarks during its course in another place. He actually said that this Bill was not urgent. Nevertheless, it was subjected to urgent procedures in another place. There was no week's delay between Second Reading and the remaining stages.
Despite the evident hurry back in January this year, there was then an extraordinary and pregnant pause between the Bill finishing in another place and appearing for Second Reading here. We did not see it until the end of the summer term at the end of July. It was explained to us by the Government Chief Whip that it would be helpful to produce it for Second Reading at the same time as he knew that Members of your Lordships' House who live in Northern Ireland would be here. I am sure that the Government Chief Whip thought that that was a good and sufficient reason. It is typical of him to want to be so helpful to your Lordships, particularly those who travel far to come here. None the less, it is perfectly extraordinary that other members of the Government asked the Chief Whip to make those kinds of excuses without giving us a straight answer. Given that in principle this Bill is doing utterly the wrong thing and is encapsulating a division of interest, it must be right—
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: Before my noble friend sits down, I wonder whether he has seen the document entitled Sinn Fein Submission to the All-Party
1254
Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution, headed "Six County Representation in the Oireachtas". It argues that the traditional demand by the Northern Ireland nationalists has been for representation in the Dail. It refers to the fact that historically they had representation in the first and second Dail. It continues by explaining a number of different ways in which they could sit in the Dail. They argue that one "solution"—their word—might be that all 18 Members in the House of Commons could also sit in the Dail at the same time. Is it not extraordinary that the Government's proposals, for which no convincing explanation has been given, dovetail so well with what is in this document?
Viscount Cranborne: I am extremely grateful to my noble friend. He anticipated precisely what I was about to say. My noble friend Lord Cope set the matter out so clearly that I did not believe that repetition was necessary. However, my noble friend Lord Lamont has set it out even more clearly. I am familiar with the document to which he referred.
As my noble friend Lord Cope said, this Bill is a constitutional outrage. It is even more outrageous given the hole-in-the-corner way in which the Government have introduced it and the extraordinary way in which they have marshalled its passage through Parliament. There are also the rumours which have surrounded the dates for the remaining stages of the Bill during this spill-over period. The rumours I have heard have continued. As I understand it, the dates have changed almost continuously over the past few weeks, no doubt in order to accord with the tortuous negotiations which are no doubt going on behind the scenes between the various parties to the Good Friday agreement. It is a bad Bill, and that has been compounded by the way in which it has been handled. This Committee should be extremely grateful to my noble friend for this amendment, which I enthusiastically support.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: I have a good deal of sympathy for the Committee and particularly for the two Front Benches in not for the first time having to disentangle a constitutional and political monstrosity such as this. As a Ulsterman I feel ashamed of the way in which this House has been treated, not for the first time, by the present occupants of the Northern Ireland Office by producing legislation which is indefensible by any standards and which, let us face it, defies common sense. We had an example only a few weeks ago in another piece of Northern Ireland Office-inspired legislation. But for the wisdom of the present Front Bench, and if we had subscribed to it in full, we would have brought the whole system of British democracy into disrepute.
As the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, said, one of the mysteries is who asked for this Bill. I have never been able to discover the source of the pressure. There has never been an explanation. That is compounded by the timetabling to which the noble Viscount referred. The Bill appeared suddenly in the other place at the

1255
very end of January. It then went into hibernation until, as the noble Viscount said, literally the last few hours of this House sitting before the Summer Recess. The Bill then disappeared yet again. No more was heard of it. Hints were dropped that no one was very enthusiastic about it. I do not blame them for that when one considers all the pitfalls. It was thought that the Bill might not be heard of again.
Now for no apparent reason it has been exhumed yet again and we are invited to give it a final polishing. The pressure which has been applied and the way in which Her Majesty's Government have been forced to surrender to it has meant that we are all in the ridiculous position of soiling our hands with something which is indefensible. I wonder whether it is correct that the Bill puts Irish representatives on the same footing as representatives of legislatures in the Commonwealth. The Bill is by no means clear. In fact contradiction is piled on contradiction in that field.
There is also contradiction in some of the phrases used such as "elected to" the House of Commons or to the Irish Parliament. There is another contradiction as regards taking seats in the other place. It is all very well to he elected but it is a different matter to take one's seat holding the views shared by Mr Adams and Mr McGuinness. Where is the explanation, the dividing line and the criteria between someone being elected, which is a comparatively simple operation in many ways? One can pick a constituency with a large majority in accordance with one's own views, which is very different from taking one's seat if the person elected knows very well that those who voted for him or her would certainly not approve of his actions. All these matters need to be sorted out if we are not to have yet another unworkable, indefensible piece of legislation on the statute book.
Finally, I wish to make a point which was made also by the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne. It was not made in any sense of antagonism. For as long as 30 years, I have had occasion to consult with our friends in the Irish Republic. However, we must face the fact that they are working to their own agenda simply because they are responsible to an entirely different electorate. It is not a British electorate. As perhaps an accidental election looms over the horizon, they will be more sensitive to a suggestion that they are co-operating with the "hated Brits". That is the kind of language to which they resort as polling day draws near.
With all due respect to them, and making allowances for their problems, it is a great mistake to fool ourselves into believing that they look on all such matters in a broad-minded way, as we in this House tend to do.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: Before speaking to the amendment, I want to make a couple of points and ask one question. First, I understand that the Disqualifications Bill works as follows. Someone is elected, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux said, that is fine. The issue of qualification arises when, having been elected, the person wants to enter the House to take his seat. I cannot see how the Government could resist the amendment because one
1256
of the qualifications is that a Member should not support terrorism. The 1981 Act made it clear that it is a disqualification to do so. That would inevitably apply to the members of Sinn Fein who might want to enter. Therefore, it is a fairly empty procedure to get elected and then not be able to take one's seat.
Not only that, but after representations had been made that Gerry Adams should be allowed to take his seat in the House of Commons he was asked whether he could see himself doing so were the Oath to be changed—for instance, with reference to the Crown removed. He replied,
"No, because the issue for us is the claim of that Parliament to jurisdiction in Northern Ireland".
So even if they were not disqualified by their connections to terrorism, they would still not be prepared to take the Oath. Therefore, the procedure is empty.
The people who would be qualified would be Members from any other party in the Dail; but when asked whether the other parties had been consulted all that the Minister in the other place was able to say was that this Government had talked to the Irish Government and they supposed that that reflected the view of some of the political parties. That was hardly a detailed answer.
My second point is that there is an inherent impossibility as regards the human rights issue. When Martin McGuinness went to the European Court of Human Rights claiming that it was unjust that he had been excluded from sitting here because he would not take the Oath, the court clearly ruled that this Government were acting entirely within their rights. When he said that he was being refused entry because he refused to take the Oath, the court found that that need not prevent him entertaining his republican views, but that the rights also extended to the right of the state to protect effective democracy. The Oath requirement can be considered a reasonable condition attaching to elected office, having regard to the constitutional system of the respondent state. It also said that it must extend human rights to the protection of constitutional principles which underpin a democracy. The court also pointed out that the electors, in voting for him, full well knew that he would not take the Oath and therefore would not be able to take his seat. We are therefore looking at yet another travesty because it is manifest that members of Sinn Fein, if elected, would not take the Oath, and therefore would never take their seats, and that the others are not interested.
Finally, I do not believe that it is clearly enough understood that those who are electing such people would themselves have their rights taken away. I should like to know whether there is a single example of an existing Member of a Commonwealth legislature solemnly coming to the United Kingdom, putting himself up for election and being elected. I do not know of any such case and I shall be interested to be told whether there has been one.
If it has not happened, once more this Bill is perfectly ridiculous because it is wholly unlikely that someone is going to come all the way from Australia

1257
or Tonga, go to Lewisham and say, "I thought that I would like to enter the House of Commons". I cannot understand why the legislation still exists, but to use it and say solemnly that this wonderful right, which has so freely been exercised by members of the Commonwealth, should be now extended to those in Dublin because we are friends is absolute nonsense.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Fitt: Of all the legislation I have seen pass through both Houses during my 35 years as a Member, this is the most confusing. I am pleased to follow the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, in his journey through history because I have a little history in relation to the Bill.
Unfortunately, I was called away when the Bill received its Second Reading in this House. I therefore had to depend on the reports of that debate and those in the other place. The more I read, the more alarmed I became. I believe that there is something happening which I do not understand and, what is more, which I am not meant to understand.
When both the week after Second Reading and last week I went to Ireland, I contacted all my friends in the Irish Parliament; in Fine Gael and Fianna Fail, the two major parties, and in the Democratic Left. I asked whether any of them put forward the idea of serving in both parliaments. The members of Fianna Fail to whom I spoke were very cagey about it. Those of Fine Gael were very annoyed about it. Those of the Democratic Left laughed about it and I shall illustrate why in a moment.
I said to members of those three parties that when they read the Irish newspapers—particularly the Irish Times and the Belfast newspapers—they can see the government of the Republic of Ireland expressing opinions every day of the week, and sometimes every hour of the day, in relation to what is happening in Northern Ireland. I asked my Dublin contacts why it is that no member of the government or opposition there has seen it right to express an opinion on the legislation. I should be very happy to hear a member of the government of Fianna Fail, or even a Fianna Fail TD, or the leader of the opposition, Fine Gael, or one of their members, standing up in the Dail saying, "We made representations for this legislation and we fully support it". But why the silence? That is why I say that there seems to be something sinister about the legislation. It was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Cope, who said that it seems to be particularly designed to please Sinn Fein, the political party in Northern Ireland. I read the debates in the House of Commons. No member of the SDLP was present to vote for this legislation. One would have thought that if its members had contemplated having a dual mandate they would have been there, but they were not. It is hard to understand why the Labour Government seek to push through this legislation.
The noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, took us on a jaunt through history. I offer another which is very pertinent to a Labour government and my own
1258
socialist beliefs. In 1948 Ireland was a member of the Commonwealth. Under the then premiership of Mr Costello and the Minister of External Affairs, Sean MacBride, the Irish Republic, as it became known, was taken out of the Commonwealth. That withdrawal was followed by the Government of Ireland Act 1949 which had a disastrous effect on politics in Northern Ireland. I was there at the time that it happened and I witnessed it with a broken heart.
When Ireland was partitioned in 1920 both sides went into their trenches. The only people who did not do so were members of the trade union movement and the Labour Party. They saw it as their function to put aside the emerging border politics and represent workers, whether they be Catholic or Protestant or of no religion at all. Once the Labour government put the Government of Ireland Act on the statute book it created what James Connolly had predicted in 1910 when the first rumblings of partition began to be heard. He said that if Ireland was partitioned it would bring about a carnival of reaction among the working class, because pro-border and anti-border Protestant and Catholics would be set against one another. That was exactly what happened when Ireland withdrew from the Commonwealth, and the Government of Ireland Act 1949 was introduced. It wrecked the Labour movement in Northern Ireland at that time and caused great division among the trade union movement. The Labour and trade union movement had tried its best to avoid border politics but the Government of Ireland Act 1949 pitched it right into the middle of it.
I say to my noble friends on the Front Bench that I watched that happen. After 1949 there were two, if not three, Labour parties: the Northern Ireland Labour Party which was in favour of the present border; the Irish Labour Party which was against the border; and the Republican Labour Party which was opposed to the border. The whole Labour movement was torn asunder because of Ireland's withdrawal from the Commonwealth and the subsequent introduction of the Government of Ireland Act 1949. That is why there is today no Labour party as such in the six counties of Northern Ireland.
The Social Democratic and Labour Party has another agenda. That party, which freely admits that it is a constitutional nationalist party, was created by the antecedents of the Government of Ireland Act. One cannot join any Labour party in Northern Ireland today without having political division on the border as a result of Ireland's withdrawal from the Commonwealth. The noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, began by referring to Queen Elizabeth I and, half-way through, the Commonwealth. That was the most important lesson that I learnt because of Ireland's withdrawal from the Commonwealth.
The noble Lord, Lord Cope, drew an imaginary picture of what would happen if one put one's name down for a number of constituencies. Is it possible for such a scenario to arise? That was what happened in Northern Ireland in the Assembly elections. Every candidate who put his name on a nomination paper for a seat in the Assembly hoped to get votes from all over

1259
the six county areas and the constituencies. It was the aggregation of votes for candidates representing different parties which enabled them to take seats. For that reason, there are two Sinn Fein Ministers. At the end of the election Sinn Fein was able to say that it had received so many thousand votes; the Alliance Party, which came behind it, said that it had received so many thousand votes and was entitled to two seats. That is a very bad way to run elections; and sometimes the results can be very disappointing.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cope, that Sinn Fein has already decided to put forward a candidate who will be elected to a Northern Ireland constituency and will then fight a cross-border constituency—Donegal, Louth or Monaghan—in which case it will be able to say that its candidates represent areas North and South of the border. That would give it a good fillip. It would be very bad news for the SDLP, and even worse news for the government of the Republic. In that scenario, when candidates stand on that kind of ticket, backed up by this legislation, it is quite possible for them to win seats in the Republic. The emotional impact of one candidate standing for a dual mandate—a seat in the Republic and a seat here—could be tremendous. If it happened in three or four constituencies Sinn Fein could be part of a coalition government in the Republic after the next election. Therefore, Sinn Fein has an agenda. Speaking as a Labour man all my life, it is unfortunate that that agenda has been helped along by a Labour Government. They are pushing ahead according to a Sinn Fein agenda to the total exclusion of every other political party in the Republic of Ireland. None of them wants to see this legislation.
I read the replies of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton. He did not appear to convince anybody, certainly not me, of the necessity for this legislation. People in Northern Ireland are convinced that this is another concession to Sinn Fein. We have seen what has happened in Northern Ireland over the past month. Murders by Sinn Fein and loyalists take place every day. Four so-called loyalists were murdered last week. Sinn Fein murdered a member of what is called the Real IRA. I find it hard to put that into words. Everyone in Northern Ireland knows that it is still associated with Sinn Fein. It is not right for any government to help that political party.
As in the case of the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill, opinions voiced on this Bill in this House will be analysed. Most of the people who speak against the Bill will be depicted in Northern Ireland as unionists or Protestants. I could be classified as associating myself with them and making anti-Irish comments. Let me make it clear, again and again if necessary: I am not a unionist. I have fought unionism all my political life in Northern Ireland. I am certainly not anti-Irish. But that is the way that some of these remarks will be taken when this debate is reported.
Can the noble and learned Lord get someone to ring up the Taoiseach—I understand he was in Leeds last night—and say to him, "For God's sake, will you issue a statement saying that you support this legislation?"; or do the same thing with Fine Gael, and say, "Please,
1260
please, I am in difficulty here. Everyone is pounding hell out of me in the House of Lords. So will you say something that will justify our enacting this legislation?"? I would then be prepared to believe that there is some validity for the Bill. At the moment I do not believe that that is so.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: At Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, said that,
"surely is now the right time to extend this modest courtesy to the Irish Parliament".—[Official Report, 27/7/00; col. 721.]
Having listened to the debate today, I should like to invite the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, who, I believe, will reply for the Government, to extend a modest courtesy to this Parliament and reply to the question that has repeatedly been asked, both in this House and in another place; who has asked for this Bill? It is a very important question because so far we have heard that there is only one political party whose programme would be furthered were the Bill to be enacted. That is Sinn Fein. It is essential to be told whether anyone else has asked for the Bill and, if they have, when and in what circumstances?
Another modest courtesy would be for the Minister to say why the Bill has been brought forward. I need not repeat—the hour is getting on—the extraordinary timetable that has been followed, both in the other place and in this House. Why was it brought forward? Why has this timetable applied? We are told that the Bill is not part of the Good Friday agreement; it is consistent with it. The Good Friday agreement was argued over for an enormously long time, and represents, I say again, a great achievement for all those who participated in it. But it is extraordinary that this Bill, which is a substantial constitutional measure, should be brought forward in circumstances when it was not contemplated apparently by those who participated in the Good Friday agreement. I very much hope that there will be answers now to these questions.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: In effect this has been another Second Reading debate in relation to the Bill. Two questions have run through the whole short debate. First, why are we having this Bill? Secondly, who asked for the Bill? As to why are we having the Bill, without going into the matter at any length—speakers in the debate have revealed an understanding of the legal position—it is the case that at the moment, before the Bill is enacted, members of all other foreign parliaments are disqualified from membership of the House of Commons and of the Northern Irish Assembly unless the foreign parliament is a Commonwealth parliament. Equally, in relation to voting in parliamentary elections, one cannot vote in a British parliamentary election unless one is a UK, Commonwealth or Republic of Ireland citizen. Equally, one is qualified to take one's seat in the UK Parliament only if one is a UK, Commonwealth or Republic of Ireland citizen.
Therefore, with regard to voting and the right to sit in Parliament, Commonwealth, Ireland and UK citizens are treated as one. As to disqualification from membership of the UK Parliament, where one is also

1261
a member of another parliament, the UK Parliament and Commonwealth parliaments are treated as one but the Republic of Ireland parliament is treated separately. So at the moment there are two separate anomalies in our law. First, the Republic of Ireland parliament is not treated the same as Commonwealth parliaments for the purpose of dual membership. Yet the Republic is treated the same when it comes to voting in British general elections and when it comes to the right to take up one's seat in the UK Parliament. That is not talking about dual membership but the right to vote and the right to take your seat.
Viscount Cranborne: I am extremely grateful to the noble and learned Lord. He has given the technical position which all Members of the Committee accept. This may be an unusual question. Does the Minister think that it is right that the Commonwealth position should be as it is?
4.45 p.m.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: That is the position as it is. There is no proposal to change the position, either in relation to the dual mandate issue, so far as concerns Commonwealth parliaments, nor in the right of the Republic of Ireland's citizens either to vote or become Members in the United Kingdom. So that is what the position is. That being the—
Lord Cope of Berkeley: Before the noble and learned Lord moves on, I do not think he answered the question from my noble friend Lord Cranborne. But in any case does he know of any example when the ability of members of Commonwealth parliaments to sit in the House of Commons has ever been exercised? I have gone to some trouble to find out. I put down a Parliamentary Question. The Home Office did not know. I asked the House of Lords Library. It has been through such information as is available to it. It has no record of the right ever having been used. It consulted the House of Commons Library, which consulted bodies outside. This great ability of members of Commonwealth parliaments that the Minister talks about, with which we have somehow to bring ourselves together, is completely empty. It has never ever been used in history. What is more, it is never likely to be used.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Like the noble Lord, Lord Cope, I have posed the question and no one has been able to tell me of any occasion on which a member of a Commonwealth parliament has also sought to sit in the House of Commons. Therefore, I am not in a position to gainsay what the noble Lord, Lord Cope, says in that respect. But it should be remembered that there are two aspects to this issue. It is not just the dual mandate issue. There is also the right of the citizens of the Republic of Ireland to vote in UK parliamentary elections and their right to take seats separately from the dual mandate issue.
Lord Laird: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Is it not true that to gain a vote in this
1262
country— whether one is a UK citizen, a citizen of the Irish Republic or a citizen of a Commonwealth country—one has to be a resident?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I think that is right. But a resident's right to vote would not apply to people except in the categories I have indicated; namely, Republic of Ireland, Commonwealth and British citizens. So, yes, I think there is a residency requirement. I shall check, but I think that there is. That does not give one a right either to vote or stand in the UK Parliament elections unless one is also a member of one of the three groups I have indicated
Lord Elton: We are in Committee, so I do not apologise too much for interrupting yet again. As I understand the matter, the noble and learned Lord is seeking a kind of geometrical or symmetrical argument in saying that what applies to electors should apply to representatives. If one has a vote, one should be able to sit in Parliament. Surely, the responsibilities of being an elector and of being a representative are entirely different here. Therefore the analogy fails to carry any force.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: With respect, no, because I am seeking to draw attention to the fact that, in relation to who can vote and who can sit in the UK Parliament, the Republic of Ireland, the Commonwealth and the United Kingdom are treated as one. Should not the position be the same when it comes to the issue of dual mandate? That is the basis on which, as a matter of form and substance, we approach the issue.
The noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, asked whether it is right that citizens of the UK, the Commonwealth and the Republic of Ireland should all be allowed to vote and sit. No one suggests that there is anything wrong with that approach. In relation to the dual mandate issue, which is separate, the noble Viscount put forward an elegant historical argument based in part on dinner time discussions in the Cecil family. The noble Lord, Lord Cope, put forward arguments in that respect. But the position is as it is; and there is very much to be said for the position being consistent.
That is particularly so when the position is, as I believe that it is, that our relations with the Republic of Ireland are good. Following the Belfast agreement, they have been strengthened by four new British/Irish treaties; and they have been strengthened by the changes in the Irish constitution to reflect agreement on the constitutional position of Northern Ireland, and by new institutions to develop further British/Irish co-operation. So, in the context of a good relationship with the Republic of Ireland—a relationship that has never been better—it is appropriate that these changes be made to provide consistency in the position. That is why we think it appropriate to introduce changes.

1263
Perhaps I may respond to the second point that was made: who asked for it? I am not sure that that is an appropriate question to ask in relation to legislation.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Surely it is for the promoter of legislation—that is usually the Government, but it could equally be a private Member—to say, "We think that this is appropriate legislation to promote"; and it is then for Parliament to decide whether it agrees or disagrees with the promoter of the legislation.
Viscount Cranborne: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way. With the greatest respect to him, I really do think that his last answer is beyond caricature and so I shall not dignify it by saying anything else. But his argument about good relations between the Republic and the United Kingdom is a little curious. If good relations is a criterion for dual mandates, should we not also be negotiating with the United States on similar terms?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: No, because the United States is not in the same position as the Republic of Ireland. The moment the noble Viscount begins to identify countries that are not among the countries that are treated differently—Commonwealth countries and the Republic of Ireland—different questions arise which could not possibly be resolved by a Bill of this kind. No basis is established by previous legislation that would justify such an approach.
Those are my answers to the two questions that have flowed through the debate. I accept that these are very, very serious issues which require important consideration. Between Committee and Report I am more than happy to meet noble Lords—in particular, the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, the noble Lord, Lord Cope, and the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux—to discuss them.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: Is the noble and learned Lord really saying that one fine day the Prime Minister woke up and thought what an interesting idea this would be and then failed to consult anyone but the Taoiseach and Sinn Fein? It sounds a very curious way of initiating legislation.
Lord Hylton: I invite the noble and learned Lord to explain the extraordinary stop-and-start nature of the progress of the legislation through both Houses.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Perhaps I may deal, first, with the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Park. I have sought to set out the justification for the Bill: why we are proceeding with the Bill and what its merits are. It is a matter for both Houses of Parliament to decide whether they agree or disagree with the merits of the Bill, just as it is for them to decide in relation to any Bill placed before them whether by a private Member, the Opposition or the Government. The points being made along the lines of "We do not know
1264
who asked for it" should not distract one from identifying whether a particular House of Parliament agrees or disagrees with the Bill; and, with the greatest respect, in Committee we discuss the detail of the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, asked about the progress of the legislation. The Bill went through the House of Commons in January. The Northern Ireland Assembly was suspended in February, until May. No steps were taken to further the Bill at that time because of the suspension of the Assembly. The Bill was then placed in the timetable of your Lordships' House on a date which the Chief Whip—I know noble Lords will accept this—thought would be convenient for Members of your Lordships' House who come from Northern Ireland. The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, looks surprised by that, but I can tell him that that was the reason why the date was chosen. It was known that another Bill concerning Northern Ireland was due to be debated on the same date and it was thought that it would be convenient and helpful for Northern Ireland Members of your Lordships' House if this Bill also was dealt with on that date. That is why the present timetable has been followed. I understood the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, to accept that that was why 27th July was chosen.
Viscount Cranborne: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. Even though this is Committee stage, perhaps I may say that he has been very generous in giving way. I always accept what the noble Lord the Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms says, and anyone who knows him will also accept it. Therefore, as we must accept that, I wonder how the noble and learned Lord would interpret the words of the Government Chief Whip on 27th July that the Bill was part of the "choreography"—I think that I quote him reasonably exactly—of the negotiations. Will the noble and learned Lord consider that point in the light of the intervention a few moments ago of my noble friend Lady Park?
Lord Elton: Perhaps the noble and learned Lord will also explain why the suspension of the Northern Ireland Assembly should suddenly have made the Bill inoperable? Would it not be just as effective with the Assembly suspended unless the suspension of the Northern Ireland Assembly had in some way affected the choreography of the Good Friday agreement and relations with the government of the Irish Republic?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: In answer to the noble Viscount's question, the choreography point is, as I hope that I have indicated in the course of my remarks, part of the reason for bring the three groups into line—the United Kingdom, the Commonwealth and the Republic of Ireland; it is because of the deepening and improving relationship between the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom, in part as a result of the Belfast agreement. It is something that arises out of that.
The noble Lord, Lord Elton, asked why, the Assembly having been suspended, the Bill did not then go through its normal parliamentary stages. Plainly,

1265
with the Assembly suspended, it would have been insensitive—there were particular sensitivities applying at the time—for the Bill to be pursued at that particular time.
Those are the answers to the question "Why?" and those are the answers to the question "Who wants it?". In relation to—
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. He is moving on from the questions that he was asked. He indicated that he was not sure whether it was appropriate to ask the question: who has asked for the Bill? Before the noble and learned Lord moves on, I wonder whether I may help him to resolve that question. When considering legislation, is it not generally rather wise to know whether certain people will be pleased and certain people displeased by it? The noble and learned Lord knows well enough those who will be displeased by it. Surely it is relevant to ask the question: who will be pleased by it and, therefore, who—if anyone—has asked for it? It is this point which, I venture to suggest, makes my question appropriate.
5 p.m.
Lord Fitt: Before my noble and learned friend replies, perhaps I may say to him that I, too, have been thinking along these lines. My noble and learned friend has not answered the question of whether any of the major political parties in the Republic have asked for this measure. I should like to ask my noble and learned friend the other side of that question: did he ask any of the major political parties in the Republic what they thought of the Bill, or did he not ask for their opinions because he might not have been happy with the answers he would have received?
Baroness Strange: I hope that I will be forgiven for speaking out of turn. Perhaps I may quote a short poem which I believe might be helpful to the noble and learned Lord:
"As I was going up the stair,
I met a man who wasn't there.
He wasn't there the other day,
I wish that man would go away".
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I believe that I have already given my answer to the question of who might have asked for the Bill. It is for the Government to decide, in the light of their consultations, whether a Bill is appropriate. We should remember, too, that this Bill received its Second Reading in the House of Commons in January of this year. We have now reached November and therefore 11 months have been allowed for views to be sought. I do not think that any doubt exists as regards the majority of people's views in relation to the Bill. Plenty of scope has been given for proper parliamentary scrutiny. Ultimately, however, surely it must be for the two Houses of Parliament to decide what they think of the Bill. They must form their views not on the matters that surround the Bill, but on the merits of the Bill itself.
1266
Perhaps I may turn to a number of other matters. First, as regards the specific question put to me on the position of Mr Seamus Mallon. Mr Mallon did not sit as a Member of the Irish Senate and the House of Commons at the same time. He had resigned from the Senate before his election to the House of Commons. Currently, it is not possible to sit in both the Senate and the House of Commons. However, under the Northern Ireland Act 1998, it is possible to be a Member of the Irish Senate and a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Secondly, perhaps I may deal with the specific amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Cope. The effect of his amendment would be that in the circumstances of a dual mandate with the House of Commons and either the Dail or a Commonwealth legislature, it would be necessary to resign one's seat and to be re-elected. Requiring a Member of the House of Commons to resign and submit to re-election if that Member sought to be elected to the Irish or a Commonwealth legislature would, in effect, impose a new restriction on Commonwealth citizens that we do not feel would be sensible.
It has been suggested during the course of the debate that one individual cannot properly carry out his duties in more than one legislature; namely, that this would be to the detriment of all his constituents. That proposition goes much further than is considered appropriate in respect of dual membership of the House of Commons, the European Parliament and the devolved administrations, where there are no such restrictions. As Members of the Committee know, individuals can and do hold seats in two or even—under certain circumstances—three of these legislatures.
Under all the circumstances, I would ask noble Lords to consider carefully the arguments in favour of the clause. I earnestly ask noble Lords to withdraw their amendments.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: I should like, first, to thank all noble Lords who have participated in this debate; namely, my noble friend Lord Cranborne, the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew, my noble friend on the Front Bench and, of course, the noble Baroness, Lady Park.
I have to say that I have not found the Minister's responses to be remotely convincing. He has been extremely economical with his answers. I do not imply the phrase, "economical with the truth", but rather that he has been, quite literally, economical. He has confined himself to certain very narrow technical points and has not offered a political explanation of the clause. He has not put it into any form of political context that makes sense.
I recall a famous story about Lloyd George. He was travelling in a car in Snowdonia and became lost. He pulled down his window and asked a passer-by where he was. The passer-by replied, "You are in Snowdonia". This incident was later often cited by Lloyd George as an example of a perfect parliamentary answer: it was

1267
short, brief, true and told no one anything of any use whatsoever. I am bound to say that I think that the noble and learned Lord is something of a master at that kind of response. In some of the debates which we have had on the Dome, the noble and learned Lord has given us responses that have been wholly accurate but not very helpful. On one occasion, I recall that I asked him directly whether he could tell us what has gone wrong with the Dome. The answer came back that, "There haven't been enough visitors". That, of course, was absolutely true. However, I am beginning to recognise a "Falconerism" when I hear one. All that we have had today are "Falconerisms": technical, factual and straight answers that do not explain anything. For that reason, I think that his speech was unconvincing.
The grounds on which he has chosen to defend the Bill are different from those on which he defended it previously, or at least his arguments have been put in a very different way. I do not think that the phrase "administrative tidying up" escaped his lips quite as frequently as it did during our previous debates. We were then led to believe that this was a matter only of tidying up. Nevertheless, it is true that we have heard a number of remarks along those lines today. Indeed, when my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew pressed the Minister on this, he confirmed that this Bill did seek to tidy up an anomaly. In a technical sense we may be tidying up a legislative anomaly, but there are hundreds, not to mention thousands, of legislative anomalies c n which we could spend time in an exercise of tidying up. The question is: why has this anomaly been singled out? There must be a purpose and a political reason for the exercise. Indeed, surely it would not be sensible to tidy up an anomaly until that anomaly had proved to be a problem or until someone said, "The law here presents an obstacle to what I want to do".
The noble and learned Lord has relied on the precedent or the Commonwealth. However, he has not been able to come up with a single example of a Commonwealth Member of Parliament who has wanted to sit in the House of Commons. However, in order to provide for Ireland the same privilege—of which no one has ever availed themselves—we have to have the Bill. Moreover, we have not been told who in Ireland wants to avail themselves of this opportunity by tidying up the anomaly.
In our debate at Second Reading, I do not believe that the noble and learned Lord mentioned Sinn Fein. Perhaps it is rather vulgar to wave documents in the Chamber, but I did show the document in my possession in which Sinn Fein has advocated something that fits in well with this proposal. Sinn Fein wants Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies elected to the House of Commons also to be Members of the Dail in order, I submit, that the Parliaments of Westminster and Dublin may appear equally legitimate and equidistant from the problems of Northern Ireland.
We know who does not want the Bill. I know that the First Minister does not want it. He has told me that. I should have thought that that was quite a
1268
relevant consideration, given the delicate situation which pertains and the problems that he has to face. I know, too, from the document which I have just mentioned, that Sinn Fein does want it. The noble and learned Lord sought to justify what is being proposed on the ground that citizens of Ireland could vote in British parliamentary elections. He then sought to try to establish some symmetry between being able to vote in a parliamentary election and being able to stand for that parliament. However, I think that that argument was thoroughly demolished by my noble friend Lord Elton when he intervened to point out simply that the responsibilities of a voter are completely different from those of a representative.
Symmetry can be extended in many directions. If all we seek is symmetry, why has not the noble and learned Lord brought forward legislation to allow Members of the House of Commons to be elected to the Dail? That would further extend the symmetry being sought here. However, at present, a Member of the House of Commons cannot stand for election to the Dail unless he happens to be an Irish citizen. Only Irish citizens are eligible to stand for membership of the Dail.
Many of us object to this proposal because of the nonsense of someone being a representative in two sovereign parliaments. Of course Members of Parliament represent their constituents, but they are also there to further the interests of their country. As my noble friend Lord Cranborne pointed out, there may be times when the interests of the two countries conflict—not, I am sure, as dramatically as in the example given by my noble friend, but I can think of many examples in the field of taxation and cross-border matters where very different views probably would be taken by members of a British government and members of an Irish government. One would want a Member of Parliament to be free from undue and improper pressure, but certainly there would be a conflict of interest in some of those matters.
I have listened extremely carefully to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, but we have to follow the logic of our arguments. My judgment is that our arguments went unanswered. Despite the pleas of the noble and learned Lord, I propose to seek to divide the House. I do so consciously because it is an important matter and the arguments put against the amendment were profoundly unconvincing.
5.12 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 88; Not-Contents, 132.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Ampthill, L.

Blatch, B.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Bledisloe, V.

Astor of Hever, L.

Boardman, L.

Bellwin, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Blaker, L.

Bridges, L.

1269

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Hylton, L.

Burnham, L. [Teller]

Jopling, L.

Buscombe, B.

Kimball, L.

Byford, B.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Caithness, E.

Laird, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Luke, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Lyell, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Marlesford, L.

Courtown, E.

Marsh, L.

Cox, B.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Cranborne, V.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Denham, L.

Monson, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Moynihan, L.

Elles, B.

Naseby, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Noakes, B.

Elton, L.

Northbrook, L.

Ferrers, E.

Onslow, E.

Flather, B.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Fookes, B.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Rawlings, B.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Geddes, L.

Rogan, L.

Glentoran, L.

Seccombe, B.

Goschen, V.

Sharples, B.

Gray of Contin, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Hanham, B.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Henley, L. [Teller]

Strange, B.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Hogg, B.

Swinfen, L.

Holderness, L.

Taylor of Warwick, L.

Howe, E.

Vivian, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Warnock, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Wilcox, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Dholakia, L.

Addington, L.

Dixon, L.

Ahmed, L.

Donoughue, L.

Alli, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Amos, B.

Dubs, L.

Andrews, B.

Elder, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Bach, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Barnett, L.

Falkland, V.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Berkeley, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Filkin, L.

Blackstone, B.

Gale, B.

Borrie, L.

Geraint, L.

Bragg, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Brennan, L.

Goldsmith. L.

Brett, L.

Goodhart, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Goudie, B.

Brookman, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Grabiner, L.

Burlison, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Carter, L. [Teller]

Grenfell, L.

Chandos, V.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Christopher, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Haskel, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Hayman, B.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Crawley, B.

Hooson, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

David, B.

Hoyle, L.

Desai, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

1270

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Redesdale, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Islwyn, L.

Richard, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord Privy Seal)

Roll of Ipsden, L.

Roper, L.

Jeger, B.

Sandberg, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Judd, L.

Serota, B.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Shepherd, L.

Layard, L.

Simon, V.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Levy, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Lipsey, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Strabolgi, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Thornton, B.

Tomlinson, L.

Maddock, B.

Tordoff, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Mishcon, L.

Uddin, B.

Mitchell, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Molloy, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Morgan, L.

Warner, L.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Paul, L.

Whitaker, B.

Peston, L.

Whitty, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Wilkins, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Puttnam, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.21 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Flooding and Flood Defence
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to repeat a Statement which has been made in another place by my honourable friend Elliot Morley. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a Statement about the serious flooding that has occurred in England.
"I start by expressing the Government's heartfelt sympathy to all affected. Some houses have been flooded several times in the past few weeks. The whole House can appreciate the desperation of those householders affected.
"We do not need to be reminded of the extraordinarily heavy rains that have fallen in recent weeks—and are still falling as I speak. This is an extreme situation. The land is saturated; water is running straight off into already swollen rivers.
"Floods on this scale are rare. For example, river levels in York are the highest they have been for 400 years. The 1947 flood was the last event of a

1271
comparable scale. It was caused by a combination of heavy rain and melting snow and resulted in significant economic damage, but direct comparisons are difficult since there has been much development in the flood plain since then and our defences are much better.
"Happily, and most importantly, we have no reports of people losing their lives in the floods. Of the some 1.8 million properties at risk of flooding, fewer than 4,000 have flooded. Much of the extensive flooding we have seen has been of agricultural land.
"I believe that most flood defences for urban areas have operated to their design standard or better; this includes York, which is being severely tested. This demonstrates the justification for the significant government expenditure over the years. As the House will be aware, there is further rain to come and the prospect of more flooding cannot be ruled out. I will return to the question of funding for flood defences in a moment.
"I have to emphasise that we cannot stop all flooding, just reduce its risk. The recent floods have overwhelmed some defences. It would not have been practicable to have stopped them—it would have required massive walls which, even if they could have been constructed, and afforded, would be unlikely to be acceptable visually or environmentally. Shrewsbury turned down a flood defence scheme a few years ago on those very grounds.
"Having set out what has happened, I want to say what is being done in response. First, I pay tribute to the way in which the Environment Agency, emergency services, local authorities, voluntary services and the Armed Forces have responded to the flooding. They have been working around the clock to ensure that warnings are issued and acted upon, to evacuate people and to shore up defences. I would also like to thank the local media and local radio for their contribution in ensuring that information has been widely and quickly made available. We have seen on television over the weekend the massive efforts being made to combat the floods in York. Similar efforts are going on up and down the country.
"The Government's impression is that these partnerships have worked well, and that flood warning arrangements have also been effective. As the House already knows, when the immediate work has been completed I shall be asking the Environment Agency, in conjunction with its partners, to produce a full report on the flooding, its effects, how the flood warning and emergency response worked, and what lessons we can learn. I shall ask for this speedily, but emphasise to the House that I do not want preparation of this report to get in the way of the immediate work that needs to be done. I ask for understanding on this point.
"My right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister made an important government announcement about flooding at the weekend. He
1272
said the Government were improving the Bellwin scheme to help local authorities which incur unexpected costs in response to floods: assistance from Bellwin will now be automatic for authorities dealing with the current floods; the rate of government support will increase from 85 per cent to 100 per cent; valid claims will be settled within 15 working days and claims for advance payments can be made. This announcement addresses important concerns that have been put to the Government. The scheme will also be reviewed more generally when the current flooding is over.
"The Government are also committed to discuss with the Association of British Insurers how the insurance industry can respond more quickly and effectively to emergencies such as this, and deal also with problems of insurability for homes and businesses at risk of flooding. When the current problems are over, the Government, local authorities and other agencies will, of course, do everything they can in pursuing the recovery plan to help communities to get back to normal as soon as possible.
"I turn now to funding of flood and coastal defence. The total amount of spending on flood and coastal defence in England from all sources approaches £400 million this year. The Government are by far the largest contributor to this expenditure; in the current financial year, the Government planned to spend some £337 million in England. This is a combination of MAFF funding towards capital projects of some £80 million and £257 million delivered through the revenue support grant administered by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. Revenue support grant is used, among other things, to pay levies to the Environment Agency which the agency uses to fund maintenance and operational costs for flood defences, and the balance of capital works not met by MAFF grant.
"The announcement on the spending review in July this year foresaw that MAFF funding would be increased by £5 million next year, £10 million the year after and £20 million the year after that. In all, MAFF funding was expected to total £267 million in the next three years. We would also expect revenue support grant funding to increase by about 4 per cent a year, in line with the spending review settlement in this area.
"Recognising the severity of the floods, I am sure the whole House will welcome my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister's announcement of a further £51 million over four years—starting this year—for: additional investment in flood defence works; new whole catchment area assessment studies; and making an earlier start to planned improvements in the flood warning system. This is new and additional money for England. Further discussions are in hand about the possibility of extra resources for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

1273
"The further funding is particularly welcome. It will allow us to progress more river-based flood defence schemes. This an issue that the ministry needs to discuss with the Environment Agency. The Government do, however, expect to make an announcement on decisions as soon as possible.
"I ask the House to join me in expressing the Government's appreciation to all those who have been involved in responding to the flooding. I also ask the House to acknowledge the already major investment that the Government make in flood and coastal defence and to welcome the further funding that we are making available to ensure that the risks are reduced for current and future generations".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
5.29 p.m.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. I am sure that the whole House will join her in offering condolences to the families involved, some of whom have been struck twice, so quickly. It is not just a matter of flooding, which is bad enough in itself; unfortunately, on this occasion, sewage and other leakages have occurred, presenting an additional hazard with which people are having to cope. Like the Minister, I should also like to pay my tribute to the many—whether in the voluntary or in the regular services—who struggled to help to relieve the suffering of those families who have been struck for a second time, as well as those for whom it is a first-time experience.
When the Easter floods happened two years ago, especially in Northamptonshire, the Bye Report was published. Although the Minister did not refer to it, I know that that report made some recommendations that I believe have been a help in coping with the current situation. One of the difficulties experienced at that time was the fact that the National Rivers Authority and the Environment Agency did not act together as one. However, as the Minister pointed out, only 4,000 homes have been affected this time. Of course, that is a terrible number, but it might have been larger had there not been a united front in trying to cope with the current situation. Indeed, we are grateful for that.
The noble Baroness and I discussed a topical question a few weeks ago; namely, the whole question of building on low-lying areas. In response, the noble Baroness said that PPG 25 was in the process of consultation, and was due to be published in December of this year. In the light of that and bearing in mind what has happened again, can the Minister say whether the Government will be giving much closer direction to local authorities as regards consideration of future building in low-lying areas? I understand that the Environment Agency has maps on flood plain areas.
Obviously, one of the unfortunate considerations in this respect—indeed, the Minister referred to this when repeating the Statement—is the position of people regarding their future insurance. It is not just a
1274
question of their current insurance; it is a question of how they will manage, how they can get the money and whether they will be at a disadvantage in the future because they live in such areas. I believe that Hertfordshire and Ashford are particularly affected in that respect. The Government have planned to provide some 1.5 million new homes in the South and the South East. But sadly, as we know to our cost, that area is often subject to flooding. It is an important issue. I wonder whether the Government intend to reconsider that decision.
I support the Government and thank them for the immediate response that they have given through the Bellwin assistance scheme, which will help local authorities straightaway. One of the issues that local authorities often raise with me is the fact that such money is sometimes very slow in reaching them. Therefore, it is difficult for them to cope. I am very glad to note that such claims will be settled within 15 working days. It is most important that that pledge should be delivered.
The Minister mentioned that much of the affected area is farming land. Although our natural, heart-felt concern remains with the families involved, this situation has obviously affected the farming community. Can the Minister say whether any of the money in the existing funds has been allocated to help farming areas that have been subject to flooding? Will the Government be considering what will happen to the sowing of this year's crops, which will obviously be delayed? Indeed, will they be making representations to the European Commission in that respect?
I spoke briefly earlier about the question of new housing. In the past, I understand that the Environment Agency has given recommendations for housing projects to be turned down, but local authorities have over-ruled those objections. Of 190 applications that were made last year, I believe that some 44 per cent were built despite the fact that the agency suggested to the local authorities concerned that they should not be built. Perhaps the Minister could comment on that situation.
York has been mentioned as one of the areas that is direly affected by the floods. I may not be correct in this, but my understanding is that when the York defences were originally built they were meant to cope with 12 feet of flood water, but they have been deluged with 17.8 feet of water. Therefore, for very obvious reasons, when reports are made regarding the current situation, I hope that we shall anticipate higher standards of provision than has been the case in the past. Indeed, after the report is published, I wonder whether the Environment Agency and the Government will consider looking at some of the very good flood schemes that seem to be working; for example, the scheme in Boston, Lincolnshire, which is very low lying, is a case in point. It has not been affected by flooding because it has a very good sluice-gate mechanism on the river before it reaches Boston, with much drainage to support it. Perhaps the Government and the agency will consider favourably those areas with successful flood schemes.

1275
I thank the Minister once again for repeating the Statement. Our hearts go out to all of those who have been affected. I hope that my questions will prove to be of some assistance.
5.35 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, in the unavoidable absence of my noble friend Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, it falls to me to thank the Minister for repeating the Statement and to respond to it. I hope that the noble Baroness will forgive me if a wander a little beyond her immediate responsibilities. It is almost impossible to discuss this subject and keep all the issues together in one little box. Like the Minister, we on these Benches wish to express our sympathy with all the people whose homes, farms and businesses have been flooded in recent days—sometimes more than once. They have lost possessions, crops, business materials and the use of their homes, and now face a period of great uncertainty. Equally, everyone must be deeply impressed by the devotion and energy with which the emergency services, the armed services, the local authorities and government agencies have tackled their work of rescuing those who have had to leave their homes, shoring up flood defences and co-ordinating emergency work.
The Statement refers to flood warnings that were given and the Minister expressed some satisfaction in that respect. However, can the noble Baroness say whether such warnings are also accompanied by information as to what to do in the case of flooding? We look forward to reading the report from the Environment Agency, from which it is hoped further lessons for tackling floods will be learned.
We also welcome the improvement made to the compensation scheme to local authorities by the Deputy Prime Minister, especially as regards the faster access to compensation and the 100 per cent government funding. I hope that the bureaucratic means of achieving that aim will be sufficient, because an eight-day turnaround is pretty quick for any letter to Whitehall. Can the Minister tell us a little more about what the Deputy Prime Minister hopes to gain from his meeting with the insurance industry? A rapid response to claims against insurance policies would be very welcome, but will the Deputy Prime Minister also address other problems, such as that of the uninsurable losses that have been sustained; for example, with respect to crops already sown? Further, can the Minister say whether any initiative has been discussed with the Inland Revenue to allow for extended time for payment of VAT where returns have been lost as a result of the floods?
We are all aware that there is a link between the increase in the built environment, especially where building has taken place on the flood plain, and the severity of flooding. I join the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, in her questions on the issue. The noble Baroness told us about the increase in funding for flood defences projected for the next 10 years. The figures sound large, but they do not, in themselves, enable us to make a judgment of their efficacy and the efficacy of the Government's flood defence
1276
programme. We need more information to enable us to do so. Is it the Government's expectation that the report of the Environment Agency will provide guidance for the prudent and rational action that needs to be taken to help achieve the best and most sensible flood defences? I take on board the comment made earlier that it is almost impossible to defend everyone from every flood that might occur at any moment. My comments should be taken in that context. However, will the report contain some factual estimate of the work that is required so that we can compare that with the funds that will be provided?
There are also worries about the diversity of bodies through which flood defence money is channelled. Can the Minister confirm that, at present, two government departments, the Environment Agency, local authorities, the Crown Estates and other organisations all have powers to become involved in flood defence work but that none of them necessarily has the duty to do so, or to see it through to completion? For example, was it not just that sort of bureaucratic lack of clarity that resulted in delays in vital flood defence work in Lewes? Is not a good deal of engineering and environmental expertise required to make sure that flood defence works fulfil the job for which they have been created?
Are the Government considering setting up a single agency to receive and disburse the funds, and to have the necessary information and technical ability and, above all, the authority and duty to ensure that flood defence works are carried out in a sensible order and to a satisfactory standard?
5.40 p.m.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Baronesses who have spoken for their general support for the measures we have instigated in response to the floods and for their expressions of sympathy for those affected and of thanks to all sections of the community who have assisted in this situation.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, that lessons were learned from the Bye report, certainly in terms of the need for good co-operation and in terms of some of the emergency planning exercises which took place this summer. I believe that those exercises were of assistance in several areas when dealing with the enormous difficulties of the past few weeks.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, mentioned the institutional arrangements. She is right to say that they are complex. The important matter is whether they are understood by the bodies involved and whether it is possible or beneficial to centralise responsibilities in only one place. The Environment Agency is the principal flood defence operating authority. It has a duty to supervise flood defence matters and is responsible for flood warnings. It also has to work closely with local authorities which are responsible for emergency planning and for responding to a wide range of emergencies, not only flooding. It is important that we retain a local democratic input in that response.

1277
There must also be a responsibility in this matter on the part of the emergency services. As we have seen over the past few days, they may have to be brought in. As we have also seen over the past few days, it may be necessary to involve the military in these operations. We are looking in particular at funding mechanisms and whether those should be reviewed or streamlined in some way. We keep under review the work of the local flood defence committees and the agencies that are involved. I do not rule out for ever and a day the possibility of change. However, the most important matter is to get all the agencies which are involved working together smoothly and effectively.
As regards flood warnings and information on what to do, I believe that in the main that worked well, although I am sure that it was not 100 per cent successful. I believe that the facility to telephone people automatically when a risk was registered was valued, along with the general leafletting, the helpline number that was issued on local and national weather forecasts and, as I said in the Statement, the assistance given by local radio in alerting people to the danger of flooding.
The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, also mentioned access to floodplain maps. Those maps have been made available to local planning authorities. The Environment Agency is considering ways to make them more easily accessible to individuals as this issue assumes greater importance.
The noble Baroness was right to pinpoint the problems posed by the floods for agriculture. The funding I mentioned is basically funding for flood defence. Through the Bellwin scheme, that funding is provided to local authorities and emergency services. However, we have discussed with the NFU some of the issues that pertain to farmers—for example, arable area payment schemes—and are urgently considering what we can do in that area.
As regards tax and VAT returns, my honourable friend said in another place that he would certainly contact the Inland Revenue as regards providing assistance in that regard to businesses affected by flooding.
I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, mentioned taking forward best engineering practice. She mentioned the scheme in Boston. That was effective, but we must recognise that the storm did not affect the Anglia region in the same way as the North East. It is important to learn from experience in this country and elsewhere. My right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister announced on Saturday that we intend to ask a senior independent civil engineer to carry out a review of technical approaches to flood alleviation in the light of recent experiences both at home and abroad.
The noble Baroness mentioned York and asked whether the "tolerance" levels of defences were adequate. The flood peaked in York at 200 millimetres above the "tolerance" level and the defences held. However, all of us have to consider the standards of flood defences for the future. That relates to the
1278
strengthening of guidance to local planning authorities (PPG 25). As I said in response to the noble Baroness's Starred Question on the matter a little while ago, the guidance is being strengthened. It is already government policy to discourage inappropriate development in floodplains. We intend to issue revised guidance next month which will emphasise in particular the need to move towards a risk-based approach which takes account of the likely impact of, among other things, climate change.
5.48 p.m.
Lord Bridges: My Lords, from these Benches I add my thanks to the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement. I was particularly glad to hear her say that when the Environment Agency's report is received the Government will consider the problem of coastal floods. I am delighted to hear that that is being done. She will remember the remarks we exchanged on that matter not long ago in the House. One of the matters that she mentioned would be considered is insurability. That also arises in the coastal context. I hope that a further matter might be considered which the noble Baroness has not mentioned; namely, the way in which the Government set a financial envelope for the study of coastal problems. That limits the extent to which studies can be carried out. I hope that some change in the procedures may occur as a result of the further studies which are to be carried out.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am grateful for those comments. We are focused on river flooding at the moment, but it is appropriate also to consider coastal defences in the long term. The noble Lord was right to point out that, in looking to the long term, we need to base our approach on good science and on best understanding of the possibilities for the future. I believe that we all recognise the need for urgent work to address the likely—although no one can say whether they are inevitable or certain—effects over the next years and decades. We are still not certain whether we are seeing abnormal weather patterns which are part of a cyclical exercise or direct effects of climate change. We need to understand that better in order to act appropriately.
Lord Jopling: My Lords, first, does the Minister agree that while protection of human lives is the first priority, the Government should review the inadequacy of drainage on our trunk roads and motorways? Is the noble Baroness aware that for over 24 hours a 20-mile stretch of the A1 south of Scotch Corner was closed over the weekend? That caused traffic chaos which must have been hugely expensive to industry, to the transport industry, which has problems of its own, and to many private individuals in cars. There was total chaos because of flooding. It should be a priority to ensure that the drainage arrangements on motorways and trunk roads are adequate to deal with such floods.
Secondly, I turn to coastal defences. Fifteen or so years ago, I was responsible for coastal and flood defences. Will the noble Baroness give an undertaking

1279
that no new money allocated for flood defences will be diverted from tidal defences. Unless things have changed greatly over the past few years, parts of eastern England in particular are still at serious risk from tidal surges.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the noble Lord's latter point demonstrates how important it is to have local democratic input into establishing priorities, which inevitably will have to be set. Difficult decisions will have to be made in particular with regard to coastal areas. It is important that we debate priority setting. It is easier to have such a debate when there are extra resources available; and that is what we shall have.
I take the noble Lord's point about the importance of drainage on trunk roads. We are all conscious of the difficulties which are compounded with regard to transport. I undertake to ensure that the Highways Agency will be one of the organisations involved in the exercise that will take place when we have caught breath in terms of learning some lessons.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, first, will the Minister indicate whether the ABI has fallen down on its duties towards insured people? When did the noble Baroness or her fellow Ministers discuss the matter with the ABI? What has been its response? Secondly, what happens to tenants or sub-tenants who are not insured? They would not be covered by the ABI. Have the Government any plans in respect of those people?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, there are those who are desperately badly affected in a range of ways in these circumstances. Flooding has been an insurable risk in the past. Concern has been expressed that people who have suffered in the current rounds of flooding will not have access to insurance in the future. That is one of the issues which will soon be the subject of discussions between Treasury Ministers and the insurance industry. We are also discussing with the ABI how the insurance industry can respond quickly and effectively to emergencies such as this. We have said that we will operate within 15 days as regards the Bellwin rules. It is important that those who have insurance cover have quick access to the funding which will come through that.
However, my noble friend is right to point out that there are wider issues about the overall affordability and availability of insurance. Those will be addressed.
Baroness Fookes: My Lords, will the Minister address the key issue of not allowing planning permission to be given for land subject to flooding. Will not local authorities find themselves in the middle of a clash? On the one hand, they will be given this stronger guidance. On the other hand, the Government have committed themselves to major building of houses in particular in the South East. If local authorities have the courage to refuse permission, can they expect support if there is an appeal?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I understand the noble Baroness's point although she would not expect me to
1280
prejudge individual appeal decisions on individual planning applications. She fairly points out that there are issues which need resolution. The Environment Agency may give general advice that planning should be refused because development is within the flood plain. In strengthening guidance, we are asking that it be moved to a risk-based approach which takes account of likely impacts. After the experience of the past few weeks, I am sure that local authorities will not underestimate the potential for flooding. But responsibilities for planning applications remain with local authorities. They are the responsible democratic bodies. They have to balance the factors.
The Lord Bishop of Wakefield: My Lords, my diocese is in Yorkshire although I am glad to say that Wakefield is not flooded as York so sadly is. Nevertheless, families in my diocese have relatives who are suffering flooding in their homes. One family was enormously distressed, having read in newspapers that the value of its property would probably now be decreased by something like 25 per cent. I realise that the Minister may not be able to respond immediately. However, can she assure us of the Government's sensitivity to the difficult financial position of people who may have bought houses in areas where there has been some worry about the wisdom of planning permission?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, like the right reverend Prelate, I sympathise with people who find themselves in difficult circumstances as regards financial responsibility. We have to consider carefully the implications.
One of the lessons learned after the Northampton floods is the importance of getting agencies such as the Department of Social Security involved on the ground, with Benefits Agency staff present from the beginning so that essential Social Fund applications can be met quickly and advice offered to those in distress.
Lord Judd: My Lords, does the Minister accept that many of us find reassuring the practical measures outlined in the Statement in the truly dreadful circumstances which people are suffering? The noble Baroness referred to work being undertaken to assess whether the flooding is an unusual climatic condition or part of a longer trend. But many will feel reassured only when they hear the Government put climate change, global warming and the strategic environmental considerations which arise in that context at the centre of all their strategic policy formulation. I am sure that my noble friend will agree that the present circumstances—alas!—may be an indication of even worse things to come in the decades ahead.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, my noble friend is right to say that we should not assume that recent events are simply a reflection of cyclical weather patterns. We have to build into our defence plans allowances for issues such as sea level rises as a result of climate change. He is also right to say that we need

1281
a strategic overall view, not just a short-term response. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister made the same points in a recent speech on strategic environmental issues.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I declare an interest as a civil engineer. Reference has been made to a debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, a few months ago. Does my noble friend the Minister recall that one of our colleagues who is notable in the environmental world expressed the views of many environmental quangos—and possibly those of the Government—pouring what might be called cold water on the idea of hard flood defences and suggesting instead that the right policy was to allow nature to take its course? We have seen nature taking its course and it does not seem quite such a good idea. The Minister may not be able to give an assurance, but will she at least turn her mind towards a policy of extensive hard flood defences throughout the country?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, it is not possible to give an overall blanket response to that contribution. We have to look at the areas concerned. There is a difference between coastal and river defences. The appropriate solutions will not be the same for all coastal regions or for all flood plains. We have to look strategically at the defence of a whole area, rather than concentrating on small localised schemes. We have guiding principles about what is appropriate, but there is no alternative to careful scrutiny of individual areas, their needs and the appropriate responses to them.

Disqualifications Bill
6.3 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 1.
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 2:
Clause 1, page 1, line 5, at beginning insert ("Subject to section (Commencement conditional on progress to decommissioning),").
The noble Lord said: The new clause contained in Amendment No. 34 would make it clear that the legislation should not come into force until there had been progress on decommissioning. In view of the suggestion made on the previous amendment that it might dilute my opposition to the Bill, I should make it clear that I oppose the Bill as a whole and do not want it to be passed into law or to come into force at any point. However, one has to proceed on the basis that it might be enacted.
We have already discussed the puzzle of why the Government want the Bill and who else wants it. The Minister said that nobody had asked for it and the Government had thought of it by themselves. When we asked why, he said that it simply corrected an anomaly to bring the situation into line with an unused provision. I cannot help thinking that the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, got it right when he said that he found it difficult to understand the Bill and that he felt that we
1282
were meant not to understand the reasons for it. If it is to be enacted, the least that we can do is to try to ensure that the Government get something in exchange for making this concession.
It became clear during the debate on Amendment No. 1, if it was not clear before, that Sinn Fein is the only serious group that wants the Bill, apart from the Government. Are the Government getting anything in exchange? Everyone who is looking for a solution to the Northern Ireland problem wants things from Sinn Fein and the Provisional IRA. In particular, we all want them to renounce violence and the threat of violence as the means to a political objective. Decommissioning is the test of that.
The Good Friday agreement set out a two-year timetable for decommissioning. Well over two years later, nothing effective has happened, apart from two inspections of PIRA arms dumps. The loyalist terrorists have done nothing effective. If the Government want to achieve something through the Bill, it should be decommissioning. Now is the moment to do that and the aim of the amendments is to provide a vehicle for it.
The Government should not agree to anything else—certainly not anything as far-reaching as this Bill—without getting something in return. I was one of many who told the previous Secretary of State for Northern Ireland that she would be unwise to allow the two-year timetables for prisoner releases and decommissioning to be separated. Allowing that separation in the agreement and subsequently has been the Government's key error on Northern Ireland. However, the prisoners are out and decommissioning has not effectively started, so the message to the Government now is that they should not make the same mistake again.
The Prime Minister sometimes proceeds as if it was necessary only to be nice to terrorists and they will be nice to us. If we let their prisoners out first they will soon give up their arms, and for that matter their aims. In fact, the terrorists have seen that and other developments as a sign of weakness and have kept asking for more and more, including the Bill, which was never in the agreement.
Sinn Fein wants the Bill, but nobody else in Northern Ireland does, as far as we can tell—apart from the Government. The message of the amendment is that if the Government must pass the Bill, they should at least get something for it, and preferably decommissioning, because that would be a symbol that the terrorists had begun to look to democracy and not to the bomb and bullet, which have destroyed the lives of so many people in Northern Ireland. I beg to move.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: I support the amendment. My Amendment No. 7 has the same aim: that the implementation of the Bill should be conditional.
Our belief that this is an extraordinary measure has been underlined by the interventions of the Minister. If we are to make an extraordinary concession, surely it should be linked to something. My noble friend on

1283
the Front Bench linked the concession to decommissioning and disavowing terrorism. My Amendment No. 7 is similar, but seeks that this part of the Bill will come into force only after the Secretary of State has made a statement that the Belfast agreement has been implemented in all respects by all parties.
It seems to me to be a reasonable demand to make that this far-reaching, extraordinary measure should at least be attached to visible progress. It has been felt that the Government have been sliding and that we are entering an unreal world. I consider that the most unreal moment occurred a few weeks ago when the noble Baroness who spoke from the Dispatch Box told us that we had no idea who had fired a mortar at the headquarters of MI6; I believe that there is hardly a Member of this House who is not pretty sure who fired it.
We are living in an unreal world in which standards are being abandoned and we are making fatal compromises that ultimately may contaminate our own standards. Therefore, I strongly support my noble friend's amendment and, as an alternative, plead in aid with it my own amendment which relates specifically to the Belfast agreement.
Attached to this group of amendments is my Amendment No. 35, which is of an entirely different nature. I am slightly surprised that it has been grouped in this way. Amendment No. 35 seeks to insert a new clause, which states that:
"This Act shall not come into force until legislation is passed by the [Irish Parliament] removing the disqualification on members of the House of Commons and the House of Lords becoming members of the legislature of Ireland".
In other words, I believe that an argument exists for saying that we should have reciprocity before this measure is implemented. The concession that we are extending to those who are elected to the Dail should be extended by the Dail to Members of the House of Commons.
As I said in my earlier remarks, I believe that the bar on membership of the Dail is not the same. No Irish legislation exists which is comparable to the disqualification legislation in this country. However, I believe that I am right in saying that one can stand for the Dail only if one is an Irish citizen. Of course, a situation may arise in which an Irish citizen who is resident in this country, or an Irish national in Northern Ireland, succeeds in being elected to the House of Commons and then manages to be elected to the Dail.
However, we are extending to all Irish citizens the right to stand for election to the House of Commons. I believe that a reciprocal arrangement should be made before this legislation is passed. After all, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, sought to make his (if he will forgive my saying) slender justification for the Bill on grounds of symmetry. Let us have symmetry all round. Let membership of the Dail be available to Members of the House of Commons, which effectively at present it is not.
I know that an objection mentioned in the Minister's brief is that that would require the amending of legislation which would affect other
1284
members of the Commonwealth. We do not require Commonwealth legislatures to allow Members of the House of Commons to stand for the Seychelles Parliament before Members of the Seychelles Parliament are allowed to stand for election to the House of Commons.
However, as we have heard again and again, that is all theoretical. No Members of the Indian, Australian, Canadian or Seychelles Parliaments have ever stood for election to the House of Commons. There is no prospect of Members of Commonwealth parliaments becoming Members of the House of Commons. However, there is a very real prospect of someone in an Ulster constituency in Northern Ireland contriving through this Bill to be elected also to the Dail. The prospect of people being Members of the House of Commons and of the Dail is real. If such a situation is to occur, let us have treatment on all fours. Let us have some of the Minister's symmetry.
Of course, I do not believe that enabling Members of the House of Commons to stand for election to the Dail would justify the breach of the principle. It should not be possible for someone simultaneously to be a Member of two sovereign parliaments. Even if reciprocal arrangements were to exist, I should still find the principle offensive and wrong. However, if the Government, who have their Second Reading, are to proceed with this legislation, I believe that in order to make unsatisfactory legislation a little more equitable it would be reasonable to expect Members of the House of Commons, or people standing for election to the House of Commons, even if they were not Irish citizens, to be treated on the same basis. That is the thrust of my second amendment.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: I rise briefly to support the amendment and what has been said by the two noble Lords. I do so because 15 members of my family are Australian citizens residing in Australia. Some of them are closely associated with the political machinery, both of the federal parliament and of the state legislatures. Never in any of my conversations with them have I heard a serious suggestion that any of my 15 Molyneaux connections should come here to stand for election to the Parliament of the United Kingdom, even though some of them could claim a certain qualification of residence.
Viscount Cranborne: It is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, who, if I may say so, has a wonderful propensity for taking sideways looks at subjects. I do not know what that does for other noble Lords, but it certainly cheers me up.
Rather like my noble friend Lord Lamont, very reluctantly I support my noble friends' Amendments Nos. 2 and 34. As my noble friend pointed out, the objection to the Bill has nothing to do with decommissioning. It is an absolute objection in principle. As I said in my remarks during the previous debate, the objection is that a Member of two sovereign parliaments will have a divided loyalty.

1285
Neither Amendment No. 34 nor, with the greatest respect to my noble friend, Amendment No. 35 does anything to put right that outrage.
However, if the Government were to get their way—I very much fear that they will, in spite of our best efforts to prevent that—I suppose that it is incumbent on us to do what we can to make a bad situation a little better. Therefore, with some reluctance I support the amendment. However, I feel that I have no alternative but to do so.
Given the circumstances in which we find ourselves, the link to decommissioning which my noble friends made in Amendments Nos. 2 and 34 has a certain logic to it. For those of us who are disappointed at the progress of the peace process so far, I am afraid that it has become a matter of constant repetition to point out that one set of parties to the peace process has signally failed to perform the undertakings which it gave as part of the agreement.
Political parties closely linked with active terrorists on both sides of the sectarian divide—both the republican and the so-called unionist side—have failed to surrender one single ounce of Semtex or one single weapon. As government Ministers have repeatedly pointed out—and it was pointed out again in the debates on this Bill in another place back in January—that forms an integral part of the agreement. The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Office said so himself and it is recorded in the Official Report.
It is perfectly sensible for the Good Friday agreement to make the decommissioning of weapons an integral part of any peace agreement. After all, it is surely part of the deal of parliamentary government—and I hope it does not sound patronising because it is common cause between every single Member of this House but perhaps worth repeating—that we do what governments of the day tell us to do, very often extremely reluctantly, because we know that everybody engaged in the parliamentary process will play by the basic rule of the game, which is that, if we are outvoted, we shall go along with it. It is when people who go into administrations without having thrown away the Armalite but still using the ballot box come into play that we begin to wonder whether the game is not being played with a weapon which the rest of us not only do not possess but do not wish to possess.
It is for that reason that my noble friends have been extremely sensible in linking their amendments with progress to decommissioning. I am astonished at their moderation because they refer only to "progress to decommissioning" rather than the completion of decommissioning. That shows how low our expectations have sunk, as my noble friend intimated. Therefore, if we are to do what seems to me to be this outrageous and very silly thing, at least we might get some benefit from it if it is linked to a dedication to a purely parliamentary means of pursuing politics rather than using parliamentary means only so long as they work for whatever faction one happens to belong to. If it does not work, then the implied threat is there that, "They haven't gone away, you know".
1286
For that reason, as I say, reluctantly, I must support that amendment, although it seems to me to have nothing to do with the principal objection to the Bill.
I turn briefly to Amendment No. 35 tabled by my noble friend Lord Lamont. All I would say about this amendment is that I feel rather the same way about it as I do about Amendment No. 34, as I believe my noble friend does as well. There is nothing to remove the principled objection which many of us have to this legislation but at least this encourages him a little further down that virtuous path of his addiction, which is rather sudden, to legislative tidiness.
The noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, mentioned the federal parliament in Australia. Let us take that as an example. How does the noble and learned Lord think that those friends and relations, with their federal parliamentary connections, would feel if the Government of Australia suddenly presented this Bill, changing what has to be changed for Australian circumstances, to the Parliament of Australia, saying that it would be possible to be a Member of both Parliaments if one were a United Kingdom citizen? We know that if you are an Australian national you can, at the moment, be a Member of the United Kingdom Parliament. I have already made clear that I deplore that matter as a relic of imperial times which needs correcting. But let us say that the Australian Parliament were presented with this Bill, suggesting that one could be a member of the Australian Parliament and a Member of the United Kingdom Parliament.
I spent an extremely happy year in Australia when I was 17 and 18 years-old, in the south west of Queensland. I am sorry to say that I have never been back to that wonderful country since, much to my dismay. But when I was there I learnt that Australians, even back in 1963–64, were beginning to have a very powerful feeling of their own nationality and the pride that goes with it. Even then, they were beginning to object to what I think became known as the cultural cringe.
In the wake of the Olympics, Australia has become increasingly self-confident and proud, and rightly proud, of its status as an independent nation. The idea that a mirror image of this Bill would be acceptable to the people of Australia seems to me to be so absurd as not really to require any further discussion.
So if it is right that the people of Australia or the people of other Commonwealth nations feel that way—and I am sure they would if presented with a Bill like this—and if, as my noble friend implied, a non-Commonwealth parliament, the Dail, might feel the same way, and there is no evidence to show that it feels any differently, if presented with a similar piece of legislation, why is it right that we should accept it?
It is purely speculation, but my only suggestion is that perhaps this is a hangover from imperial times when it seemed as though this Parliament were somehow greater and more important than other national parliaments and, therefore, we could afford to take a broader view and everybody would become privileged to become part of what would be a sort of

1287
imperial parliament. Indeed, if that is so, we go back to the days of Joseph Chamberlain, since we are clearly in the business of historical reconstructions today.
One only needs to ask oneself that kind of question to realise that what has become manifestly and increasingly obviously an absurd position for the Government to take is absurd even if one accepts the principle of the Bill, which I do not, unless Amendment No. 35 is accepted. I should prefer that our first amendment had been accepted but since that was not possible, I suppose we must try to make do with something which is at least a minor improvement on what is already an outrage.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: When the noble and learned Lord replies, perhaps he will comment on another dimension to this matter. It was said in the other place that we had consulted the Irish Government and hoped that that consultation would reflect also the views of the parties. But how do the interests of the Dail in all this square with the position which the Taoiseach has taken since January—and perhaps it is a new development—when he said,
"for Sinn Fein to take part in a government with Fianna Fail",
which is, after all, what the Dail is frightened of because, although Sinn Fein has only 1 per cent of the vote in the south, that is likely to change,
"it would need to resolve its relationship with the IRA, as Fianna Fail did in the past, at the time of its formation".
He added that.,
"any government formed here would have to be in conformity with Article 15.6 of the Constitution which requires that there be only one Army raised",
by the state.
If that is what he thinks, I find it surprising that he should wish to see anything done which would promote and advance the strength of Sinn Fein/IRA. When the Minister replies, I should like to know whether any further consultations have taken place since January with the Irish Government to take cognisance of that. That seems to me to be a reasonable concern on their part and equally on ours. If we have a government in the south which is heavily penetrated by Sinn Fein/IRA, we are all in trouble, not least the Taoiseach.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Dubs: I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Cope, for the fact that I did not hear the whole of his opening speech, although I think I can guess what his arguments were.
Perhaps I may comment briefly on Amendments Nos. 34 and 35 which go to the substance of the debate. Obviously, everybody wants decommissioning to happen. However, it is not helpful or sensible to link this Bill to decommissioning. It seems to me that that would be going off on a tangent which is neither helpful to the cause of the Bill—I appreciate that the amendment is not intended to be—or to the cause of decommissioning. In this place we have found on a number of occasions that decommissioning has been linked to other issues. That is not helpful.
1288
Decommissioning must happen because it is right in principle and not because we seek to link it to other issues that are before this place.
I have some sympathy for Amendment No. 35. I remember from my time in the other place the discussions on reciprocity as regards the right to vote of British people living in the Republic. It took some time for the equivalent right to the right of Irish citizens to vote in elections in this country to be granted.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Does he realise that he has put his finger on an important point? The argument put forward by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, for allowing Members of the Dail to stand for election in the UK was, to some extent, based on the fact that Irish people living in this country could vote. He tried to argue that if they could vote, they should be able to stand for the House of Commons. By that argument, if, thanks partly to the efforts of the noble Lord, British people are now able to vote in the Irish Republic, by the argument put forward by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, they should also be able to stand for election to the Dail.
Lord Dubs: I understand the point but I think that my noble and learned friend on the Front Bench got it right. Reciprocity may be desirable. However, I believe that the way to achieve that is to pass this Bill and then to enter into negotiations with the Irish Government. Noble Lords laugh. However, that is precisely what happened on the right to vote. We had the right to vote for Irish citizens living in this country for many years. Then, I believe in the 1980s, we sought to engage with the Irish Government for a similar right. That is the way it happened then. It is no good noble Lords laughing. To my mind, that is the most sensible way for things to happen here.
However, I am bound to say that whatever protestations have been made from the other side about the fact that, "We are against the principle but if we fail to stop the principle, let us do it this way", the debate has rather weakened the argument in principle to which I listened before the Statement. It seems to me that if the case in principle is as strong as has been maintained, it is somewhat weakened by compromising in this way. Noble Lords opposite sold the pass on their own arguments before the Statement.
Lord Laird: As a Member of this place who resides in Northern Ireland, perhaps I may take the opportunity to raise a number of issues.
There was discussion earlier about the fact that members of the Commonwealth and citizens of the Irish Republic could vote in UK elections and that therefore it must follow that people could stand in UK elections. The point is that the people who are categorised to vote have a residency qualification. They live in the United Kingdom. It seems slightly unlikely that a Member of the Irish Parliament would he resident in the United Kingdom. So the argument is difficult to sustain.

1289
I would ask the Committee to consider the effect of this type of legislation in Northern Ireland. As Members on this side of the Chamber have said, according to the Belfast agreement, there seems to be parity but some people appear to get more than others. We come back to the point where Sinn Fein/IRA and sections of the Dublin government are not fully implementing the Belfast agreement.
I listened with considerable interest when the Minister referred to the good relationships with the Government of the Irish Republic since the Belfast agreement. I am sure they were good even before the Belfast agreement, and I do not see why they should change now. However, while we are implementing the Belfast agreement, there are elements of the Dublin government which are not. I shall return to that subject later when we debate another amendment. It is not a case of rewarding them or giving them sweeties because they are doing the right thing. It is not even a case of giving sweeties to Sinn Fein/IRA because it is doing the right thing; it is not. It is not decommissioning. The only people I can see who are implementing the Belfast agreement in full are those in the party to which I belong; that is, the Ulster Unionist Party, and the people around us. It does not come naturally to us to be part of cross-border implementation bodies, but we are prepared to do that as part of the Good Friday agreement.
However, when we ask for understanding, help or support that might keep our community satisfied with what is going on, we are assured that the Belfast agreement is for them as well as for the nationalist community. We do not seem to make headway in the debate on the police Bill, nor in any other debate, or we make limited headway. I do not wish to take away from the help given to me personally by the Minister. I recognise that he has been extremely helpful on issues. However, government as a whole have not been helpful in playing their part in implementing the Belfast agreement and allowing us in the unionist community to bring along our community, which is an important element. As stated in this place only two weeks ago, if we do not have the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party, David Trimble, we do not have a peace process.
Perhaps noble Lords could ask themselves what this kind of legislation is doing to the base support; the people who rally round the leader of the Unionist Party.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The substance of these four amendments makes the commencement of the Bill conditional upon three things: first, substantial progress on decommissioning; secondly, agreement by all parties to the Belfast agreement that all aspects of it have been implemented; and, thirdly, Irish legislation removing the disqualification for membership of the Irish legislature which applies to Members of the House of Commons and the House of Lords.
As I made clear in the debate before the Statement on the floods, the position is that we put the Bill forward on the basis and in the light of the improving
1290
relations between the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom. For all the reasons I have indicated before, it is appropriate that the anomaly be removed. I do not put it forward, nor has it ever been put forward, as being a part of the Belfast agreement.
The first two amendments in particular do not relate to the subject matter of the Bill, but rather seek to delay the Bill coming into force until actions not related to the Bill have been taken by others.
As I indicated, this Bill is about promoting better relations in these islands—north and south but also east and west because the provisions affect the assemblies and the Scottish Parliament as well. To make these desirable and modest changes dependent upon action to be taken by paramilitary organisations would be inconsistent with the principles we are trying to advance. Similarly, to make commencement dependent upon a decision by all the parties that all aspects of the Belfast agreement have been implemented would delay the Bill for reasons which have no relation to the development of British-Irish relations.
I deal with the proposed amendment to the laws of the Republic of Ireland. There is no disqualification, as the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, explicitly acknowledged, in Irish legislation on the basis that one is a Member of the House of Commons or the House of Lords in this country. However, one must be an Irish citizen to vote or stand in an election to the Dail in the Republic of Ireland. But we are not talking about that aspect of electoral law; we are talking of disqualification from membership.
The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, would have no effect because there is no sort of disqualification along the lines of his amendment. To say that we remove the disqualification that exists under the law of the Republic of Ireland to be a Member of the Dail if one is a Member of the House of Commons would not mean anything because there is no such disqualification. In those circumstances, there is reciprocity in relation to grounds for disqualification of members of the respective legislatures; what there is not is reciprocity in relation to the right to vote in elections to the Dail as opposed to the right to vote in United Kingdom parliamentary elections.
But this Bill does not deal with that; it deals with disqualification from the legislature. For that reason, with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, the third condition sought to be imposed is wholly inappropriate. In those circumstances I ask the noble Lord, Lord Cope, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: I shall not be pressing Amendment No. 35 to a Division, though I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, for recognising that it has a certain logic.
I recognise, as the Minister said, that the amendment is perhaps not correctly worded because there is no specific disqualification on a Member of the House of Commons being a member of the Dail. But in Irish law there is an effective means of stopping most

1291
Members of the House of Commons from standing for the Irish Dail; that is, that one must be an Irish citizen. One cannot be a British citizen and stand for the Dail, though one could have dual nationality and stand, which may be a means by which some people will stand in the north and also stand for the Dail. My amendment is not illogical. It may be imperfect in its wording. But it is entirely logical, as was recognised by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs.
As regards the noble Lord's points in relation to Amendments Nos. 7 and 2, I understand the argument that it is not appropriate because it links a different matter. But it is not entirely inappropriate to link a different matter when no reason of any kind has been advanced for this mysterious legislation that none of us understands. That is the unanimous view of everyone who has spoken, with the possible exception of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, who did not speak on the first amendment. No explanation has been advanced for this Bill, other than the flimsy one of "tidying-up". Nonetheless, I shall not press Amendment No. 7 to a Division.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, apologised for missing my first few words and I entirely exonerate him from any blame in that respect. But he did thereby deprive himself of the opportunity of hearing me say very fiercely that I object to the whole Bill. But the fact that I object to the whole Bill does not disbar me, if I may say so to both the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and the noble Lord, Lord Desai, from discussing the details of the Bill.
Lord Dubs: I did not suggest that it would disbar the noble Lord. I suggested that it weakened the cutting edge of the point of principle made in the earlier debate.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: If the noble Lord regards it in that fashion, then no Committee stage would ever take place. It is an absolutely absurd construction of parliamentary debate that cannot survive. If the fact that one objects to a Bill means that one is not allowed to discuss the details without being accused of weakness, then we can pack up the whole Committee stage of everything. Perhaps that is part of the Chief Whip's plan. Maybe others are trying to install that idea. I know that some wish to downgrade the Committee stage but that would destroy it completely.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Dubs: I thank the noble Lord for giving way again. I appreciate how Committee stages work. I understand his argument. But I have seldom heard on the first amendment in a Committee stage of any Bill such protestations about fundamental principles as I heard on the first amendment we discussed today. It is for that reason I made the point; not because of the general proposition that I am against both detailed and principled objections.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I shall not pursue the point except to express the view that I am glad that our
1292
fundamental objections got over to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, in the first debate; they did not seem to get over to the Minister.
However, the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, also suggested that it was not helpful to the cause of decommissioning to link the amendment to anything else. That drew me back to the debates we had at the time of the Belfast agreement and shortly afterwards when we attempted to make a close linkage between the release of prisoners and decommissioning I still believe, as I said a few moments ago, that the failure to do that was a key error on the part of the Government in dealing with Northern Ireland matters.
I will not add to what my noble friend Lord Lamont said in relation to Amendment No. 35. However, if a Bill were presented to the Dail removing the limitation that only citizens of Ireland can stand for the Dail and, when the Minister in the Dail was asked who wanted it he was told that the British Government asked for it, that would not be very satisfactory.
I turn to the amendments. This is a matter of fundamental importance. For that reason the Government should not give this Bill away, which is what they intend to do, for nothing in return. The suggestion is that there should be decommissioning. There are two versions on offer. I admit to my noble friend Lord Cranborne that my version is more moderate than that of my noble friend Lord Lamont. I thought it might help to attract the Government to this course of action. Clearly, I was mistaken. They see it as a sign of weakness. And if I may say so, that is exactly how the members of Sinn Fein see the Bill. That is exactly how they see the release of prisoners—as a sign of weakness. That is why it is no good continually giving away things—this is one more example—and expecting the terrorists to say, "Oh, they are nice people after all. We will drop our aims". They will not. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
Lord Lamont of Lerwick Lord Lamont of Lerwick moved Amendment No. 4:
Clause 1, page 1, line 9, at end insert ("provided that, in respect of Ireland, a person who is or has been a member of a proscribed organisation within the meaning of the Terrorism Act 2000 and who has not disavowed terrorism within the meaning given to that expression by that Act before taking his or her seat in the said House or Assembly shall be disqualified from membership of the House of Commons and the Northern Ireland Assembly").
The noble Lord said: No doubt I shall be told by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, that I am linking something that should not be linked. I am doing something which is absolutely outrageous: I am asking that before someone takes their seat in the House of Commons, as a Member of the Dail, they should disavow terrorism. What a terrible thing to ask! I am linking the most outrageous demands with this most outrageous Bill.
But the noble and learned Lord cannot say that I am interfering with a process. What I propose should be perfectly consistent with the peace process. Indeed, I believed that the original provisions of the Belfast agreement were that those participating should

1293
disavow terrorism. I understand that to be a Minister in the Executive of the Northern Ireland Assembly it is necessary to disavow terrorism. If it is so in order to be a Minister in the Executive, it seems a very reasonable requirement that one should also disavow terrorism before taking one's seat either in the House of Commons or in the Northern Ireland Assembly. If that provision can apply to Ministers in the Executive, why should it not apply to Members of the Assembly as well?
There are many provisions in other countries to which one might refer. The United States of America does not admit a person with a visitor's visa if they have a murder or a terrorist conviction. Only a few days ago we heard a Foreign Office Minister say that she thought it totally inappropriate for people who had been connected with the Milosovic regime to play any part in Serbian politics. We were laying down the law as to who should participate in the democratic politics of Serbia regardless of the wishes of the new president and politicians in that country. My noble friend Lord Cranborne made a very pertinent intervention. He asked whether we were really going to pursue that policy even though it threatens the political stability of Serbia. How can we preach to other countries about who should be involved in their politics and not impose minimum requirements ourselves in disavowing violence? This amendment represents a very small linkage to make. It is a very reasonable request to ask that if we are to have this extraordinary measure for which no justification has been advanced, we should at least demand that those who will sit in the House of Commons or the Assembly as well as in the Dail should have explicitly rejected terrorism. I beg to move.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, will have made his calculations. He will be aware of the fact that currently there are two representatives claiming to be representative of so-called loyalist paramilitary organisations. I am not certain that the establishment—by that I mean the dreaded Northern Ireland Office—would particularly relish the expulsion of those two Members of the Assembly. If that were done, the majority would be lost and the whole house of cards would collapse.
Viscount Cranborne: I support these amendments. It may be uncharacteristic, but I wish to ask the Minister but one question. Can he tell the House what conditions the Dail itself imposes on its Members not only in regard to the rejection of terrorism, but also what oaths have to be taken and checks made on Members of the Dail before they can become Members? If we are to do this foolish thing, it would be very reassuring for us to know that certain good housekeeping measures had been taken by the Dail itself so that we may find exact reciprocity between the two parliaments.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: I should like to know whether we can rely on the Government to apply the
1294
Representation of the People Act, which disqualifies anyone who has been detained for more than a year for any offence or who is unlawfully at large at any time when he would otherwise be detained? Anyone in that situation is precluded from becoming a Member of Parliament. Are the Government meditating setting aside that ruling, because I cannot see any member of Sinn Fein—IRA who is at present in the frame for this not qualifying under that description as excludable? It would be very interesting to know whether legislation is now being thought about while the Prime Minister has his bath, which might remove that provision in order to make life easier for everybody.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I support Amendment No. 4 and speak also to my Amendment No. 5, which is of similar import. I shall not dance around the differences of detail in the wording of the amendments. We are trying to achieve the same thing. I do not believe that either my noble friend or I is concerned to push the precise wording on the Government.
This is a very important point. I referred earlier to the possibility of Mr Pat Docherty standing in the West Tyrone by-election and subsequently for Donegal. The activities of Mr Docherty are extremely well documented in the public record as a leading member of the Provisional IRA over a large number of years. He has been very active in, and a senior member of, that organisation. I am not saying anything new. I am not seeking parliamentary privilege to make some great accusation. It is perfectly well documented in all kinds of publications.
The possibility indicated by this amendment is not a theoretical proposition at all. It might be an immediate one. Terrorism and democracy are incompatible. If democracy is to survive, it should not admit terrorists into its ranks. There are plenty of examples throughout the world where former terrorists have come into government and have made good leaders of their countries, but only after they have firmly relinquished rule by the gun and the bomb. That is the purpose of these amendments. I agree with the opinion of the Taoiseach quoted to us earlier by my noble friend Lady Park. Terrorism and democracy are not compatible.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: These amendments would retain disqualification from membership of the House of Commons and the Assembly, which disqualification would otherwise be removed by the Bill in respect of any Member of the Irish legislature who has been a member of a proscribed organisation within the meaning of the Terrorism Act 2000 and has not disowned terrorism within the meaning of that Act. I do not believe that there is any need for me to go through the list of the organisations.
As regards the approach in the Bill, I return to what I said at the beginning. It is intended to make the position of the Republic of Ireland the same as that of Commonwealth countries. In that regard, there are provisions in the Bill setting up the Assembly and provisions in relation to the House of Commons relating to other disqualifications. They will continue

1295
to apply as before. It is not intended to differentiate between the position of Members of the Dail and that of Members of any Commonwealth legislature.
As the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, rightly identified, these amendments try to link to this Bill the one thing the Bill is not about. The Bill reflects the good relationship between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. It deals with the anomaly identified in the first debate in Committee. It would be contrary to this purpose to impose a new disqualification in relation to Members of the Republic of Ireland legislature which did not apply to any other body to which the right of dual membership applied. On that basis, it is contrary to the principle which underlies the Bill.
As regards the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Committee will know that all its Members are members of parties which have indicated that they are committed to exclusively peaceful and democratic methods. Therefore, in relation to the Assembly, there is already in place a provision which meets many of the points made by Members of the Committee.
7 p.m.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: Am I not right in saying that there is a requirement for Ministers in the Executive to make a specific declaration about having disavowed terrorism?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I believe that there is and I will check the precise details. Those in the Box are nodding that that is correct. However, I am going further than that because there is a requirement for Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly, which goes beyond The Executive, to be members of parties which have indicated that they are committed to exclusively peaceful and democratic methods.
There are three further questions which I must answer. First, the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, asked whether the Irish Dail imposes conditions in relation to terrorism. It imposes no disqualification provisions in relation to membership of a proscribed organisation. The noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, asked about the Representation of the People Act. I am not acquainted with the provisions to which she referred but I can make it clear that there is no intention to change the provisions of that Act.
In the light of what I have said, it always comes back to the same propositions coming into conflict in the course of the debate. We say that the move is sensible and modest, not related to the issues to which Members of the Committee seek to relate it. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: I agree with one thing which the noble and learned Lord said; that we always receive the same reply from him. We have just heard that it always comes back to the same thing; he tells us what the Bill does and then says that we should not link it with anything else. It may have occurred to him that that is what amendments to legislation do; they link legislation to other things. That is the whole
1296
purpose of amendments. They can sometimes achieve the precise objective, making it a little more easily, but sometimes they also introduce related issues. It is not an extraordinarily outré idea that an amendment should establish some linkage to something. The noble and learned Lord should not look so shocked and surprised and believe that I am the first person ever to propose an amendment which links something to something else.
The noble and learned Lord has not made much of a case. He conceded the point that Ministers in the Assembly make a specific disavowal of terrorism. If Ministers in the Assembly have to do that, why should not Members of the Assembly do that—or why at least should not Members of the House of Commons have to do that? It does not seem an unreasonable request. My noble friend Lady Park argued that that is how the law ought to be applied in any event; it is what we have come to expect.
It seems—if I may have the Minister's attention—to be a reasonable request. I see that I do not have his attention. Perhaps we are negotiating the dinner break, which according to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, we have already had. I wish only that we had! It is not outrageous to suggest that there should be a disavowal of violence.
I am afraid that this is all just part of the very shabby, contaminating compromises which are being made and which I believe will one day come back to haunt us. I do not believe that you can make compromises of this kind without there being undesirable consequences in the long run. However, the Minister is sitting there and Ministers have responsibility for this. After what he has said, I shall not press the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 5 not moved]
Lord Lamont of Lerwick Lord Lamont of Lerwick moved Amendment No. 6:
Clause 1, page 1, line 9, at end insert—
("( ) At the end insert "is a Minister in the government of any country or territory outside the United Kingdom; or"").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 6 seeks to ensure that no one who is a Minister in another country should be a Member either of the House of Commons or the Northern Ireland Assembly. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will not give the same reply by saying that it attempts to link the Bill with an unrelated matter. It seems to me to be a closely and clearly related matter. It seeks not to go off at a tangent to an unrelated subject but to narrow down the number of people who would be able to sit both in the Dail and in the House of Commons or in the Northern Ireland Assembly.
I am sure that the noble and learned Lord realises that the amendment was tabled in another place by the First Minister for Northern Ireland. He was unable to be present to press his amendment or to speak to it, but he thought that it was important. Some of us are concerned that his anxieties and interests are being ignored. I know for a fact that he does not relish nor is enthusiastic about the Bill. I believe that if I cannot

1297
persuade the Minister of the merits of an amendment he ought to take seriously something which has been proposed by someone to whom the Government are deeply indebted for what he has done to keep the whole show on the road. If he has given so much and has kept the show on the road, I believe that the amendment he tabled in the House of Commons should be taken seriously.
It does not seem to me that it would be a good idea for a Minister in another country to be a Back-Bencher in the Northern Ireland Assembly or in the House of Commons. It seems to me that that would lead to a conflict of loyalty, as does the whole Bill. The conflict of loyalties is that if you sit in a sovereign Parliament you represent your constituents but of course you have national interests in mind. In addition, often the function of a Back-Bench Member of Parliament is to sustain a government or to bring a government down. That is where there could be a clear conflict of loyalty.
Having read the account of the debates in another place, I know that the Minister went so far as to say that he thought that some people in Northern Ireland might be better represented if a Member of the Assembly were also a Minister in the Irish Government. I found most extraordinary the suggestion that someone would be better able to represent their constituents by being a Minister in one government and a Back Bencher in a parliament in another country.
It would be easy and consistent with the Bill to make the disqualification. The House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 disqualifies a number of public office holders. Disqualified from sitting in the House of Commons are holders of certain judicial offices; High Court and Court of Appeal judges; civil servants, whether or not established and whether or not full or part time; members of the regular Armed Forces; full-time police officers; and, as we have been reminded, members of the legislature of any country outside the Commonwealth. If all those people can be disqualified, why cannot we also have a disqualification for a Minister in another country? That seems to me a simple, clean amendment. It does not go off at a tangent nor relate to a matter which is unrelated to the purpose of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I rise briefly to support the amendment. We have heard that the Government have been anomaly spotting and have discovered one particular anomaly, which is the subject of this Bill. However, I believe that my noble friend has spotted another anomaly of potential importance. It is only of potential importance if the restriction on members of the legislature of any country or territory outside the Commonwealth, or permission for Members of the New Zealand Parliament and so on to sit in our Parliament, arises. It is quite likely that it will arise if the Government believe that it is real enough to extend
1298
it to Ireland. Therefore, the anomaly which has been spotted by my noble friend should be eliminated by means of his amendment.
Viscount Cranborne: I support this amendment. My noble friend has also done a service to the Committee by raising this matter. After all, if those who object to this Bill suggest that where one is a member of two sovereign parliaments there is a conflict of interest, how much greater is the conflict if the person concerned is a Minister in either a sovereign parliament or an assembly which is subsidiary to it? Therefore, the basic objections must apply in spades. Surely, if only as a matter of degree, the noble Lord will see that here there is an objection in principle, and I hope that he will acknowledge that in his reply.
As a spin-off to this particular amendment, perhaps the Minister can tell the Committee whether it is theoretically possible for a Minister in the Irish Government to be a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: Perhaps the Minister can say whether he finds it even sensible to consider rejecting this amendment which prevents the possible entry of a Minister when the House of Commons Disqualification Act excludes, for example, members of the Commission for Racial Equality, the Equal Opportunities Commission, the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council, the Staff Commission for Wales and the Child Support Appeals Tribunal for Northern Ireland. It is extraordinary that no one is worried about excluding those people but is anxious to include people who have no relevance whatever to the interests of the country.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Rogan: I should like to speak to Amendment No. 7A. In so doing I should like to make a few general remarks about this piece of legislation. I, too, am against the entire Bill. However, I hope that that does not preclude me from explaining my particular objections to parts of the Bill as it passes through Committee. I made clear my objections to the Bill during Second Reading in July, and my view has not changed. Like the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, I again ask whether the Bill is still important for the so-called choreography in Northern Ireland.
I was pleased to hear earlier the assurances given by the Minister that it is not within the Belfast agreement. Just as one cannot cherry pick that agreement, one cannot add to it without the full agreement of all its signatories. As it stands, Clause 1 would amend the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 and the Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act 1975 and permit members of the legislature and Ministers of the Government of Ireland to sit in another place and in the Northern Ireland Assembly. We are all aware that potentially only a small group of individuals could ever benefit from this extension, and probably they would all be in the same party. Amendment No. 7A is designed to ensure that those who hold office in the Government of the Republic of Ireland as Ministers,

1299
junior Ministers or committee chairmen will remain disqualified from the Northern Ireland Assembly and the House of Commons.
Why do I wish to do so? One returns to the question of a potential conflict of interest. To sit in the Northern Ireland Assembly, the House of Commons and the European Parliament may be a demanding task; it may not allow one to devote as much time as one wants to each, but it does not give rise to a conflict of interest. Any person, however, who sits in a devolved, national and supranational assembly can do so knowing that the interests that he represents are the same. But the same cannot be true of a person who seeks election to two sovereign national parliaments, or to a sovereign national assembly and, simultaneously, to a devolved assembly of another sovereign nation.
I oppose the clause in its entirety. This amendment may be insufficient. However, like the noble and learned Lord's description of this measure on Second Reading as a modest Bill, this amendment is modest. It aims to remove the inevitable glaring conflict of interest which will arise and is completely consistent, at least with respect to the Northern Ireland Assembly. If the Minister will not listen to the views of those who oppose this clause in its entirety, I urge him to consider what I term my modest amendment.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bassam of Brighton): These amendments would create a new disqualification from membership of the House of Commons and Northern Ireland Assembly. Amendments Nos. 6 and 39 would remove the existing right of some members of Commonwealth legislatures to stand for election and sit as Members of the House of Commons and the Assembly. Amendment No. 7A has a slightly different effect: it seeks to prevent Irish Ministers or committee chairmen from serving as Members of the House of Commons and the Northern Ireland Assembly.
The Bill, with the amendments that we have tabled, will disqualify Irish Ministers and the chairmen and deputy chairman of Irish parliamentary committees from holding office as Northern Ireland Ministers or as chairmen or deputy chairmen of statutory committees. I hope that Members of the Committee will take that point carefully into account. We believe that our amendments are well directed and precise in their effect. The Bill is designed to prevent conflicts of interest that could otherwise occur if a Northern Ireland Minister or chairman or deputy chairman of a statutory committee of the Assembly also held office as a Minister in the Irish Government or chairman or deputy chairman of an Irish parliamentary committee.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: A minute ago the Minister said that the Bill as proposed would not allow a Minister in the Dail to be a Minister in the Northern Ireland Assembly. He went on to talk about the chairmen and deputy chairmen of subject committees also being disqualified. However, is that not subject to the amendments that the noble Lord is yet to propose?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: Obviously, that is the case. I am sure that the noble Lord is aware of the amendments.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: Surely, it is quite wrong to describe a Bill in certain terms before we have reached amendments which are found way down the Marshalled List. The Minister has given a completely incorrect description of the Bill.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: Technically, the noble Lord is absolutely right. We have not yet reached those amendments, but they are before the Committee to consider. We are trying to make progress with this issue. I accept that the noble Lord has a particular view. We have tried to meet some of the earlier concerns with regard to the legislation. The amendments reflect those concerns. The same conflict of interest would not apply if a Minister of a government of another country were to sit as a Member of the House of Commons or the Northern Ireland Assembly. Existing legislation does not prevent that.
Members of the Committee have asked questions to which I shall try to provide a response. The noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, asked whether a Minister in the Irish Government could be a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly. The answer is yes, but not as a member of the Executive of the Northern Ireland Assembly. I hope that that clarifies that point.
This group of amendments takes us no further. We have met most of the points with later amendments. Although I understand some of the concerns surrounding this part of the Bill, I can see no good reason for the amendment to be pursued.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: I have to say that I do not find the Minister's reply particularly persuasive. But we have been over this ground and he has returned to the core argument that has been deployed throughout the proceedings on the Bill. Obviously I am not making any progress with our point, which is shared by a number of Members of the Committee, about the conflict of loyalties and about undue influence in this most extraordinary Bill. In those circumstances, I shall not seek to press the amendment to a Division. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 7 and 7A not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: Perhaps I may ask the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, to reply to a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Desai. He made some reference to it, but I do not think that he replied very fully. The noble Lord asked about the contrast between the position of the European Union and the situation that we are now moving towards vis-à-vis the Republic of Ireland.

1301
In the debate on Amendment No. 1, the solution of the noble Lord, Lord Desai, to the lack of symmetry that so offends the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, is that we should open up membership of the House of Commons to Members of all the parliaments of the European Union. A Member should be allowed to be a member of the Bundestag or the Assemblée as well as of the House of Commons. That is restricted at the moment. The Disqualifications Act specifically disqualifies people from being Members of the House of Commons if they are Members of a European Union legislation.
However, that raises the question why that is not judged to be discriminatory legislation and how it is consistent, as is stated on the front of the Bill, with the Human Rights Act 1998 and with convention rights. I almost raised this point at the start of Committee stage, but I thought it would be rather disruptive before we even reached the first amendment. As it has been raised once already, but not fully answered by the noble and learned Lord, it would be a service to the Committee if he could give us a fuller explanation of how the clause is not discriminatory and how it complies with convention rights. Obviously this is a matter that has been fully considered.
Viscount Cranborne: There is a very powerful temptation, which I shall endeavour to resist, yet again to conduct a Second Reading debate on clause stand part at Committee stage of the Bill. Indeed, it is also a temptation to try to reiterate all the arguments that have been expressed by the doubters on all sides of the Committee during today's proceedings. Members of the Committee will no doubt be relieved to hear that I have no intention of so doing.
I wish to set on record my disgust at the Bill and what the guts of it in Clause 1 contain and at the way the Government have brought the Bill forward and the extraordinary way in which they have proceeded to manage its passage through both Houses of Parliament.
There is one explanation for the Bill which my noble friend Lord Lamont has given and which has been explained with great clarity by my noble friend Lord Cope; namely, a secret deal has been done with Sinn Fein/IRA. It was alluded to by the delightful phrase used by the Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms on 27th July when he said that this was all part of the "choreography" of the negotiations surrounding the agreement.
That is one explanation. But perhaps lingering in the background to the Bill, and adding to a fear that has lingered for a long time in the minds of the majority of the inhabitants of the Province of Northern Ireland—I speak as someone who has been interested in Northern Irish matters for over 20 years—is the thought that somewhere in Whitehall and among certain politicians there is only one solution which appeals to them to the so-called "Northern Ireland problem". That solution is that at the very least the Province should be pushed
1302
into a situation where there is joint authority over it by the Republic of Ireland and the Government of the United Kingdom.
I hope and believe that was not the intention of the government of whom I was a member. We have assurances from the present Government that that is not their intention. This piece of legislation will revive those suspicions in their most extreme form in the Province. Even if we thought that in principle Clause 1 was desirable for the reasons given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer—I have already made it clear, I hope beyond peradventure, that I do not think that they are desirable—that purely in terms—I use the word advisedly—of the choreography of the politics of Northern Ireland, this is ill advised. In a province where confidence is lacking, the Bill will undermine what little confidence there is left among the Unionists that they can trust the Government of the country of which they are still a part.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: I trust that the noble and learned Lord the Minister will be able to give the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, assurances with regard to the policies and the intentions of Her Majesty's Government. It is important that that should be done at this juncture.
I get the distinct impression that there are grave reservations in the Committee over the clause with which we are dealing. I know that some Members of the Committee, for obvious reasons, cannot give voice to their concerns. For my part, I fear that a Bill containing the clause that we are debating will remain a very large blot on the statute book of the United Kingdom.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: I do not, of course, wish to make a Second Reading speech and so I shall confine myself to the provisions of the clause. We are debating whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill. Perhaps I may take the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, back to the question that I asked him some time ago. Who has asked for the Bill? When the noble and learned Lord replied that it was not appropriate to ask that question, noble Lords on all sides of the Committee greeted that response with the levity it deserved. In my short time in the House I have not heard anything approaching the guffaw that that response elicited.
The noble and learned Lord has said that it is the duty of a government to set out the case for any proposal—to set out their stall, as it were. No doubt it is. It is also the duty of any government to explain whether a need is being met which has been voiced by any political party, government, advocate or supplicant of any substance or significance. Will the noble and learned Lord answer this question? Are the Government still wedded to the concept of transparency? If they are not, his response to my question was at least consistent with that change of position. If, on the other hand, they are, how can he conceivably justify his claim that it is inappropriate to ask as much who is for the Bill and who has asked for it as it is to ask who is against it and who has expressed

1303
those views? In the interests of parliamentary government, without being too solemn about this, I do hope that the noble and learned Lord will answer those questions.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: Some shrewd and important questions have been asked of the noble and learned Lord and I look forward to hearing his answers to them. I rise only in case the noble Lords, Lord Dubs or Lord Desai, should take silence as consent to Clause I standing part of the Bill. It is far from it. Clause 1 embodies the nub of the Bill. I believe that it is a dangerous measure and offensive to democracy.
My noble friend Lord Cranborne referred to the possibility, to which I had alluded earlier, that the Bill reflects a secret deal with Sinn Fein or others. That is one possibility. The other possibility is that the Government are walking blind into this trap; that is what it is if they are getting nothing for it and it is not the result of any deal. I have sufficient respect for the intelligence of the right honourable gentleman the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland not to think that they are walking unseeing into the trap. I believe that he would have seen through it. That is what makes me think that something else is going on.
Throughout the proceedings, as has been made clear by speakers in the past few minutes, the noble and learned Lord the Minister has been attempting to present the Bill as if it is some kind of sealed package that is to be seen in total isolation from the surrounding political and security circumstances and in total disregard, for that matter, of those consequences Only a lawyer could think that that is a relevant and sensible proposition. Most lawyers would not advance it because, as my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew has made clear, they see further than that. It is an offensive clause in an offensive Bill.
Lord Dubs: Perhaps I may speak for a few moments. I appreciate that we are debating whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill. As has already been said, it is not a Second Reading debate. But there is surely one key issue. Our relationship with Northern Ireland, Northern Ireland's relationship with us and Northern Ireland's relationship with the rest of Ireland are quite unique. Because Northern Ireland is in such a unique position there are times when unusual measures need to be brought forward. That is the nub of this debate. Northern Ireland has a relationship with the Republic of Ireland that is different from that which any part of the UK has with any other foreign country. That is reflected in many aspects of the Belfast agreement—the North/South bodies, the Council of the Isles and many other measures. The position is surely not so anomalous as to say that it is inappropriate that Clause I should stand part of the Bill.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: That may be so. But it is not the argument used by the noble and learned Lord the Minister. As a matter of fact, it is an argument with which I do not agree in this case.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Perhaps I may deal, first, with the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lamont. He is right. I did not deal with the point of whether the Bill is discriminatory vis-à-vis either the European Convention on Human Rights or our EU obligations. As he rightly said, the matter has been carefully considered. It is not contrary to any of our obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights or in relation to our obligations under the EU treaties. Every country has the right to determine its own constitution, including membership of its legislature. It is for each individual member state, whether a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights or a member of the EU, to determine the provisions in relation to that. The Disqualifications Bill determines conditions pursuant to which someone may or may not become a Member of the United Kingdom legislature. That is something which we as a Parliament are entitled to decide. We are quite satisfied that the Bill does not offend against any of our obligations under either of those legal regimes.
The noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, sought assurances that there is no parity between the Dublin government and the Westminster Government in relation to the governance of Northern Ireland. Of course I give that assurance. The noble and learned Lord knows that we have made it clear. It is enshrined in the Belfast agreement and it is enshrined in legislation that Northern Ireland remains a part of the United Kingdom subject to the exercise of the principle of consent by the people of Northern Ireland. That does not change.
In reply to the other points that were made, they come back four-square to the debates we have had on all the other amendments. The Government believe that they are entitled to have the Bill judged on its merits by the legislature. The legislature must decide whether it thinks it is an appropriate Bill. I have said why we think it is appropriate. In relation to the question, "Who asked for it?", I have said that that is not an appropriate question. I say that it is for the government of the day to decide whether it is appropriate to promote legislation and then to let the legislature decide. That remains my position. I therefore commend Clause 1 to the Committee.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, he has been courteous enough to advert to my question, though he found it impossible, I fear, to answer it. But he has left unanswered one question that I asked him. In these circumstances, are the Government still able to claim that they are wedded to the concept of transparency?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Of course we remain wedded to the principle of transparency. It is for this House, in concert with the House of Commons, to decide the merits of the Bill.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving this Motion, perhaps I may suggest that the Committee stage begin again not before 8.40 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Arts and Entertainment in a Multicultural Society
7.40 p.m.
Baroness Rendell of Babergh Baroness Rendell of Babergh rose to ask Her Majesty's Government how they consider the arts and entertainment are keeping pace with advances towards a multicultural society in the United Kingdom.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, perhaps I may begin by paraphrasing a line from "As You Like It":
"Sweet are the uses of diversity".
Full participation in the arts by all in our new and richer society who wish to share in them and have the talent to do so should be one of the paramount concerns of multiculturalism.
I prefer not to use the expression "ethnic minority". We are all "ethnic", although I have not noticed the rest of us being referred to as belonging to the "ethnic majority". Instead I shall speak of "black" and "Asian" as terms that are, I believe, preferred by all.
I turn first to that branch of the arts where little fault can be found; that is, to the writing of fiction. Without the contributions of black and Asian writers over the past 30 years, our fiction would be very much the poorer. I am thinking primarily of Salman Rushdie, one of the brightest jewels in our crown. He is the winner of the prize called the Booker of Bookers. Five other black or Asian writers have also won the Booker prize since its inception in 1969. Six out of 30 is far in excess of what would be expected, even taking into account that Commonwealth writers are included. The young black writer, Zadie Smith, is currently the only British citizen whose novel is short-listed for the Guardian prize for a first book.
But not only should the practitioners of creative writing be considered. We have also to look at the content of fiction. Here that percentage is inadequately reflected. Too many novels contain no black or Asian characters, except peripherally. They are often portrayed as poor, socially excluded, or even—in that good old Hollywood tradition of 1930s movies—in a menial capacity.
Certain groups have been traditionally denied a presence in literature and theatre in times past. Notable here is a working class, who appeared in fiction and drama only as servants, criminals or clowns. Jewish people were commonly depicted as moneylenders, pawnbrokers and Fagin-like villains. Since these groups rose to full participation, often taking precedence over those once considered higher up the social scale, black people have come in to fill the gap. Only quite recently have they begun to appear as
1306
real members of society, leading lives that do not necessarily involve drug-peddling and downright criminality, or there only as the victims of racism. Even so, contemporary black and Asian experience of work, education, religious faith, friendship and relationships still remains largely unrecorded.
But since art should never be controlled by the state, directives to novelists and playwrights to employ more black and Asian characters and situations would be unacceptable. Encouragement is another thing altogether. Those attending creative writing courses, whether at universities or at weekend seminars, might be encouraged to look at the society in which they live and understand that realistic writing today is incomplete and old-fashioned unless it aims to give a recognisable picture of multi-ethnicity. Such encouragement could well begin in schools where black and Asian children, taught to see themselves as equally British citizens as their white classmates, might also be inspired to see themselves as equally capable of contributing to British art and entertainment. I believe that already in many schools at primary level children do meet minority artists who come to speak to them or engage them in projects aimed at showing them their potential. Nevertheless, of the first £2 billion spent on the arts from the National Lottery, no more than around 0.02 per cent was allocated to organisations representing black and Asian artists.
Black citizens of the United Kingdom, in particular those of Afro-Caribbean descent, understandably cast up their eyes when told in that terrible cliché that, "You people are so wonderful at song and dance". Like most clichés, it holds more than a grain of truth, but the patronising implication is that black Britons are not much good at anything else. That is a curious conclusion to draw when we consider that a recent winner of the Turner prize, Chris Ofili, is black, and that another of our most distinguished writers of fiction and for the stage is Asian, Hanif Kureishi. In the theatre we also have, among many others, the Afro-Caribbean playwright, Mustapha Matura, along with the Asian playwright, Tanika Gupta. At present, a black actor is playing Romeo in London (with the Montague family members also black) and another is appearing as Hamlet. A couple of weeks ago, I saw a performance of "Julius Caesar" at the Young Vic in which the conspirators Trebonius and Cinna were played by black actors.
Darshan Singh Bhuller is the distinguished Asian dancer and choreographer, while the saxophonist and composer, Courtney Pine, is the black musician who has done the most for jazz in Britain to redeem it from becoming museum music. He has also inspired and promoted young black musicians, forming the Abibi Jazz Arts Group to encourage young players at a time when the form, which of course has Afro-American roots, had become the preserve of white players.
Next summer, a black arts festival will be held in London on the South Bank. But only one major arts centre presently exists promoting African, Asian and Caribbean art in the United Kingdom. This is the Birmingham-based The Drum, a modern centre staffed entirely by black and Asian people, providing

1307
courses for aspiring artists and holding exhibitions such as, for example, "Millennium—Dawn of a New Age"—a culmination of work by six young African Caribbean artists as well as another on Arts Education and the New Technology. The Drum is based on the site of the former Aston Hippodrome. It houses two auditoria and an exhibition space, as well as a café and shops.
Projects of this kind are needed in other parts of Britain such as London and other major cities—in particular those with large black and Caribbean populations. There is no theatre building in Britain run by a black or Asian director, while theatre staffs and boards are overwhelmingly white. Only 16 out of 463 board members of English Producing Theatres are black—not even approaching 6 per cent, a figure we are told is the percentage of black and Asian people in our population. The Tricycle Theatre in Kilburn has eight, Stratford East five and Hampstead two, leaving only one black board member for the rest of the country. Once there were 18 revenue-funded black and Asian theatre companies, but now there are only two. Funding here should be a priority. All but 80 of the more than 2,000 staff with permanent employment in English theatres are white. We look forward to hearing from my noble friend Lord Alli on how television is affected, and from the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, on the subject of film.
Of course it must be remembered that many British people of black and Asian origin favour integration rather than a distinctive place for themselves in the arts. To them the idea of exclusivity, as in the case of The Drum, represents ghettoisation and detracts from, rather than furthers, their aims. Perhaps they are being a little premature. The time will come when British black and Asian people are so established in our society, their presence so comfortably adjusted to both by themselves and the majority, that a black man playing Hamlet will no longer give rise to the comment, "But Hamlet was a Dane". A black Dane will be, if not as common, as appropriate as a white one, because he would be so generally seen and accepted.
But that time is not yet. It will eventually come about by gradual means and these should not be hampered either by apathy or lack of funds. Meanwhile, there is an irrefutable case for the encouragement of black and Asian artists. This can be a two-way process that benefits them by fulfilling their needs, and inhibits racism by the presentation of black people as having gifts in the arts equal to those that we are used to seeing exhibited by white contributors. It cannot be rushed, but nor should it be retarded. Are we getting there fast enough?
7.50 p.m.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Rendell, for introducing the debate. I congratulate her on the way in which the Unstarred Question is worded. The debate is not simply about the arts and entertainment but about their relationship with our multicultural society.
1308
No one disputes that Britain is a multicultural, multiracial and multireligious society. Ethnic minorities make a valuable contribution towards the social and cultural life of this country. There is a recognition among the general public of this cultural diversity and of how the arts and entertainment play a significant part in it. London is probably the finest example of where the arts and entertainment react positively with a cosmopolitan capital city. No one can dispute that minorities have excelled in this sphere. However, there are dangers of stereotyping.
Ethnic minorities contribute across the spectrum in various ways. It was a wonderful sight to see our black athletes, draped in Union Jacks, displaying their Olympic medals and singing the National Anthem. That, effectively, showed their identity with this country. The cultures reflected in the arts and entertainment represent the deepest values held by minorities.
But before we get carried away, I should point out that the contribution of minorities is not matched by essential resources. Perhaps I may ask the Minister two or three questions. The complaint that one receives most often from ethnic minorities in this country concerns resources. The noble Baroness was right to mention that of the £2 billion spent on the arts from the National Lottery, no more than 0.02 per cent was allocated to organisations representing black and Asian artists.
The first major report of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, published in 1999, made no reference in its overview to the issues of cultural, ethnic and religious diversity in modern Britain. Despite its equal opportunity policy, not a single ethnic minority person has been identified in the top 20 posts in the department.
Finally, at senior decision-making level at Channel 4, ITV and BBC, there are fewer black people now, in the year 2000, than there were 10 years ago. There must be an explanation. I hope that the Minister will provide it.
7.52 p.m.
Lord Alli: My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend Lady Rendell for raising this important question.
In June of this year, I was privileged to give the Greenwich Memorial Lecture in memory of Stephen Lawrence, Rolan Adams and Rohit Duggal. In that speech I made it clear that I believe that we have much work to do if we are to ensure that Britain's black and Asian population is properly represented at the most senior levels in our society. I highlighted, in particular, the senior Civil Service. I still passionately believe that reforms are urgently needed.
But government is not the only place where reform is needed. My industry—television—also has a long way to go before it is truly representative of Britain's ethnic communities in terms of both on-screen talent and those who make up the workforce behind the cameras.

1309
My company—Carlton Television—has a particular responsibility because 70 per cent of Britain's ethnic population live in our franchise areas. It is a young and growing population. While we in the ethnic communities make up 7 per cent of the UK population, it is estimated that we will make up 30 per cent of the population in London by 2001 and 12 per cent in the Midlands. At Carlton we have recognised that we would be failing ourselves and our audience if we did not address the diversity of our own regions. Diversity issues and our economic interests are beginning to coincide.
On 12th October this year we launched the Cultural Diversity Network. At that launch, all of Britain's broadcasters set out their action plans in detail, with specific aims and targets. At Carlton, we set tough targets to change the make-up of our workforce to match the population of our regions. At the BBC, Greg Dyke pledged that he would search for new minority talent. On behalf of ITV, David Liddiment said that it will integrate cultural diversity into the commissioning process for network programming.
An impressive array of senior figures, including Michael Jackson, the chief executive of Channel 4, and David Elstein of Channel 5, have committed themselves to taking action. All of this was co-ordinated by my colleague and friend at Carlton, Clive Jones.
To get this degree of unanimity between organisations which normally fight one another in an increasingly competitive market-place, was a substantial achievement. They all agreed that the time had come to take real action. We can build on that approach. It is a model which could be extended into all areas of the creative industries.
Black voices are beginning to be heard in television, and creative black and Asian artists are gaining recognition. But I do not believe that Britain's ethnic minorities are making headway at senior levels in our museums, our galleries, our libraries, our theatres or the arts boards. The challenge to both local and central government, and to the arts world generally, is to learn from what we are trying to do in television.
Will the Minister consider the ways in which grants are distributed by his department to the arts, libraries, museums and cultural organisations? I believe that in future they should also have a cultural diversity strategy in place so that their management teams and staff reflect the regions in which they work. Will the Minister also consider how best to use funding mechanisms to that end? Finally, will he consider his own department to ensure that it too is trying to change and that it leads by example?
There is no better time for us in the minority communities to make advances, and there is no better group of people in government than my noble friends and my honourable friends in another place to help us. I wish them the best in helping us to do so.
7.56 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Wakefield: My Lords, I welcome the debate and I congratulate the noble Baroness on introducing it. My diocese of Wakefield is a multifaith, multicultural diocese in Yorkshire and these issues are pertinent to me in my ministry.
For many centuries, of course, much art and entertainment in this country has been inspired, sponsored or provided by the Christian Churches. The fact that Christian themes remain powerful, at least in terms of our cultural identity, was clear from the success of the "Seeing Salvation" exhibition at the National Gallery.
But the Christian Churches—now, thankfully, becoming more racially aware—are relearning a truth that ought never to have been forgotten: that from the earliest times Christianity itself has been multicultural. Its great theologians—Athanasius, Augustin, Cyprian—all of them, and many others, were black.
A modern example of vibrant multicultural Christian diversity was seen in Wakefield recently at our racial justice service, when a wonderful range of music, art and poetry was contributed by our local Asian and Afro-Caribbean congregations. But—this is the point—those contributions took their natural place alongside the English ingredients. Thus, different cultures, enriching each other, were integrated into an authentic spiritual wholeness without losing their distinctiveness.
My experience of engaging personally with these issues locally in the Wakefield diocese leads me to ask for some assurances from the Government. I ask, first, that in their efforts, which I warmly welcome, to strengthen multicultural opportunities in the arts and entertainment, they will recognise and affirm the importance of the religious dimension in cultural expression; and, secondly, that the Government will do all that they can to prevent minority communities becoming slotted into stereotyped cultural boxes. That is a real danger, especially as we move into a new era of digital broadcasting and dedicated channels. Different cultures need to engage with, and thereby enrich, each other. When that happens—I see it happen often—local community relations are enormously enhanced.
I must mention a highly creative south Asian arts group in West Yorkshire called Kãlã Sãngãn. It wants to establish a community-based centre in disused mills. However, there is a competing bid to convert the mills into an employment call centre. That may bring more employment to the area, but it will not contribute to the cultural and artistic regeneration of the local community in the way in which Kãlã Sãngãn does. Therefore, the last assurance I seek is that the Government recognise the problems of finance and infrastructure in building up arts and entertainment at the important local community level, and that that sometimes has implications for funding priorities in urban regeneration areas, which are, of course, themselves so often multicultural.
8 p.m.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Rendell, for giving the House the opportunity to discuss the future of cultural diversity in our country. Our culture is, in its broadest remit, who we are, our values, how we interact and socialise with each other, and the communities which we want to belong to and promote.
And who exactly are we, in modern Britain at the end of the 21st century? We are a mixed bunch. As the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, said, we have a capital which is one of the world's most cosmopolitan cities, with an artistic life that reflects cultures from every continent. Our regions are bursting with cultural diversity. My own area, the West Midlands, is rich in the sheer range of the cultural life that is on offer—from the excellent production presently being staged (this is an advert) at the Birmingham Rep, "Ramayana", celebrating Diwali; to Sampad, the specialist Indian dance company, which is presently engaging and entertaining Caribbean audiences across the West Midlands; to the activities of The Drum, mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Rendell, the largest arts centre dedicated to those in the black community, who are excelling in the culture that is on offer; to the famous award-winning youth dancers in the West Midlands who excel in traditional Irish dance.
The creative industries across my region and across Britain are the new growth areas in our economy. For once, it is young Asians and young black people who are beginning to be the mainstream of those new creative industries, leading the new media, leading in design, music and film, and in computer software. I am told that the latest British export to the EU is "funky, electro Asian break-beat", with drum and bass and garage implications! So a great deal of excellent cross-sectional activity is taking place, reflecting our multicultural society.
But is it enough? Of course it is not—not given the level of national spend, as was mentioned earlier. It is not enough while there is racism and bigotry and fear of difference. It is not enough when we cannot satisfy those who are in poverty and who experience social exclusion. It is not enough while the arts are still seen as an élite playground for a small number of people.
However, the Government are taking major steps forward; that must be recognised. I should like to ask my noble friend the Minister what initiatives will be built upon in those major steps. I refer to the regionalisation of lottery spending; bringing local decision-making down to local level; the creation of the regional cultural consortiums—I chair the West Midlands regional cultural consortium; bringing back the priorities of local people to their local areas; the insistence by government that the cultural sectors work in partnership with each other, that heritage and art work together, that sport and museums work together. That is important. The Government are picking up and running with this baton. They have made a start. I am sure that we shall hear from the Government Front Bench that the continuation of that approach is being strengthened.
8.4 p.m.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend Lady Rendell and other noble Lords that the multicultural agenda can be powerfully advanced through the arts and entertainment. I congratulate my noble friend on tabling this Unstarred Question.
While cultural diversity has been a policy objective of this Government for some time, we still have a long way to go in finding pragmatic solutions so as to encourage the process through which minority cultures can thrive. It is unclear how decisions are made; which minorities should or should not receive funding and encouragement for arts and entertainment.
A possible model for a way in which non-governmental groups can take a lead in the promotion of minority cultures in the public arena is a policy initiative undertaken by a Jewish think-tank, the Institute for Jewish Policy Research. I declare an interest as its deputy chairman.
The Institute for Jewish Policy Research, in partnership with a French institution, is currently setting up a European foundation for Jewish culture—a kind of European-Jewish arts council. We decided on Europe because, increasingly, artistic activity is international; it flows across international boundaries. However, I think the formula is right, with or without the European dimension.
The institute's mission will be to foster artistic creativity and achievement and to encourage access to Jewish culture across Europe. This will be pursued primarily by awarding grants to creative artists and researchers who are working in the area of Jewish culture. The foundation will consider arts and entertainment in the broadest sense—not only artists, writers and musicians, but also museum and theatre directors and those working in other cultural entertainment sectors such as radio, television and film, and even the Internet.
Two important principles have been established. First, grants will be made to both Jewish and non-Jewish men and women who wish to comment on the Jewish experience. That is because all artists can directly address the concerns of different cultures. In their own distinctive way, artists and entertainers can and do affect the manner in which minorities see others and how others see them. Secondly, we expect the results of their work to be seen principally al non-Jewish venues. In this way, the results will be available to the widest possible audience and, most importantly, will not ghettoise Jewish arts and entertainment. This is a crucial consideration. This seems to be the right approach, because it has already attracted funding from a number of charitable and other sources.
I believe that this initiative can make a distinctive contribution to British culture, while at the same time strengthening Jewish collective identity in Britain. This is not a shrill demand for recognition. It is empowerment.
8.7 p.m.
Baroness Prashar: My Lords, I was particularly pleased to learn that the noble Baroness, Lady Rendell, had tabled this Question on the arts and entertainment in a multicultural society. I thank her most warmly for raising this issue. I have a particular interest in this area, having chaired the Arts Council of England's committee on cultural diversity from 1995 to 1998—years in which the foundation was laid for some far-sighted initiatives in this area.
The committee, with the help of an exceptionally able Arts Council officer, Naseem Khan, realised early on that promoting the arts in a multicultural society is more than a matter of equality of opportunity or of funding, important though both are. The notion of equality of opportunity in the arts tends to preserve the fiction of separate development—and it is a fiction. Increasingly, we are seeing a world in which art forms and artists are interacting and coming to create new, fluid forms of culture that are distinctly British—multiculturalism at its best. I welcome these developments, as I welcome also the nurturing of traditional art forms. Funding limits the argument to simple, quantifiable sectors and takes no account of quality of life and the impact of the arts.
The committee on cultural diversity sought to establish a dual principle. On the one hand, the so-called established "mainstream" needs to open its doors. It is unacceptable that the upper management of virtually all our major cultural institutions—absorbing large sums of public money—are worse than the commercial world at diversifying their staff at levels of management and influence. We cannot say that we have a multicultural society, surely, until people from minority backgrounds can find jobs in all areas of the arts: as managers of orchestras, directors of arts centres, theatre directors, gallery administrators, and not simply in what I call "ethnic slots". In this respect we are not keeping pace with advances towards a truly multicultural society.
Secondly, we understand the enormous need of the black, Asian and Chinese arts sectors to have access to skills enhancement, mentoring and networking facilities, as well as a fair share of the cake in terms of national and regional funding. I am pleased to say that our advice was heeded. The Arts Council has committed itself to a major initiative, Diversity 2002, through which it intends to achieve a "step change" for cultural diversity, recognising the historic imbalances that have held back its vibrancy.
So we can say that we have made progress. However, I am troubled to read that a mere £500,000 has been allocated to this initiative by the Arts Council. It is a pity that this enormously important initiative is not properly funded. The Year of the Artist, which I strongly support, has been allocated £3.5 million, with £35,000 to each region. We live in a society in which diversity is adding enormously to the sense of national energy and a national profile that impresses many in the rest of Europe. The Government should be putting their full weight behind initiatives such as Diversity 2002—this is an opportunity to level the playing field—so that
1314
audiences of our major producing houses mirror the population more closely, the workforce diversifies and the arts themselves break loose from the old shackles. This rare and welcome opportunity, which has been built on sound thinking, should not be lost.
8.11 p.m.
Baroness Howells of St Davids: My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend Lady Rendell of Babergh for bringing this debate to the attention of the House. When my children were growing up, I used to spend wet Sunday afternoons taking them to museums. It suddenly dawned on me that there was no museum in the capital where they could see works of art by black artists—people who reflected them. I also realised that tourists were coming into the capital and that they, too, could see no such work. It angered me. So, with £600 from the GLC, I decided to launch an exhibition in Covent Garden called, "The Alternative Tate".
The exhibition ran for one week. I was told that, at the opening, 13 members of the board of the Tate at that time had attended the exhibition. To their credit, I have to tell noble Lords that, from then on, they did in fact show paintings in the Tate by black and ethnic minority artists. They continued to send me letters telling me that they were doing so. I was very grateful.
Today, however, I wish to confine my contribution to terrestrial television. This is the mode through which minority groups, like the rest of society, access entertainment, the arts, news and other information. So television is a good yardstick with which to measure how far arts and entertainment keep pace with the diversity within the United Kingdom.
Ethnic minorities are currently believed to constitute 7 per cent of the UK population. In London, it is estimated that ethnic minorities will make up 30 per cent of the population by the year 2001, and the figure for the Midlands will be about 12 per cent. An estimated 80 per cent of ethnic minorities are aged between 16 and 35, with a huge disposable wealth contributing £32 billion to the economy. We now have evidence to suggest that those of Afro-Caribbean and Asian decent are deserting terrestrial television in record numbers. Clive Jones, the Chief Executive of Carlton, has said:
"With the fastest growing section of the audience switching off from terrestrial television broadcasters must adapt or risk becoming increasingly irrelevant".
Before discussing the work of Britain's leading broadcasters to improve the representation of people from ethnic minorities in television, I should like to pay a special tribute to the Commission for Racial Equality for its support for the Race in the Media Awards. That applies especially to Richard Jarman, the Head of Public Affairs, at the CRE, who said:
"A society that is truly at ease with itself and ready to take the benefits of its diversity requires a media that is able to address and reflect that diversity freely and confidently".
It is in that spirit that I also pay tribute to Manifesto 2000, produced by the Cultural Diversity Network (CDN), which received the support of the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport on 12th October of this year. I am sorry, I did not realise that I was

1315
running out of time. I shall conclude by saying that Manifesto 2000 has set up the same "old hat" ways of increasing minority participation in the arts. Perhaps I have lived for too long, but it just has a touch of déjà vu about it. I should like to suggest to my noble friend the Minister that he looks most carefully at set-asides for the various minority groups in terms of finance, so that they can grow within their own communities and then contribute to the rest.
8.16 p.m.
Baroness Uddin: My Lords, this evening I am wearing my culture and my art on my sleeves, as noble Lords can see from the opulent colours of my clothing. In the absence of proper government strategy, many of the communities have to do so. I just thought that I should demonstrate it in this way, but that is not to say that I do not do so every day.
The cultural fabric of a multifaith, multicultural and multiethnic country like Britain should always, like the human heart, be in motion. A static cultural life is lethal for the life of any nation. The report, The Future of Multi-Ethnic Britain, points out that we should start with questions that Her Majesty's Government need to answer when making cultural policy. For example: who should or should not receive funding for artistic and recreational activities and projects? Whose experiences, perceptions and stories should be included, how should they be included, and how should they be included in the narratives and images that appear or television and in the press? Who should have opportunities to develop skills in various competitive sports, and to represent their neighbourhood, town or country?
I could go on with those questions; for example, who should, or should not, be represented in the collections of art galleries and museums, the repertoires of theatre companies, and the programmes of local arts centres? The decisions on such questions are taken by a wide range of governmental and private bodies at national, regional and local levels. I do believe that they are representative. They inherently reflect and perpetuate views of the past—embodied in such terms as "heritage", "canon" and "mainstream"—at the same time as they fashion the present and lay the foundations for the future. Funding and resourcing policies should consciously address issues of cultural recognition, inclusion, identity and belonging and, therefore, question many customary criteria of quality and aesthetic value.
Nothing threatens the civility of a society more than ignorance. Arts and entertainment are weapons that, held in the right hands and used with the right attitude, can destroy the beast of benightedness. As a mother, I crave a healthy cultural context for my children—a context that would not only appreciate and respect their Bengali/Bangladeshi/Muslim cultural heritage, but one which would also enable them to share it with their friends and neighbours. Unfortunately, that remains a frustrated dream because we have not had the courage to work towards and create such a context. For example, investment into Islamic arts and entertainment has been abysmal. The result has been
1316
to deny our children and our whole society the civilising effect of this rich cultural and spiritual heritage.
I shall not comment on the question of funding because that has already been addressed. However, we do not need only to re-think new approaches of inclusiveness; we also need to rethink methods of funding. This greater inclusiveness now needs to be extended to embrace Britain's diverse communities and the lifestyles, experiences, identities and creative work of its newer citizens.
It only remains for me to tell noble Lords that I visited Portcullis House today as part of the celebrations for Islamic Awareness Week. It would be a good starting point if the Minister were to consider displaying examples of calligraphy and Islamic art, among others, to give a clear signal that we are committed to multicultural and multifaith art and
entertainment.
8.20 p.m.
Viscount Falkland: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Rendell, for introducing this interesting topic. I am sorry to disappoint the noble Baroness who said that I would speak on the problems of ethnic minorities with regard to film. However, that is a rather complicated subject in view of the limited time which is allocated to our speeches. Suffice it to say that recently the traditional centres of film-making in the world have spread out to unexpected areas. No longer does Hollywood dominate as it did in the past. More and more countries are now becoming international centres of film-making of great repute.
I hope that noble Lords will attend the cinema more frequently as there is so much interesting international fare on offer. Not much of it is shown in London but at the moment there is available a film of the utmost intelligence, delicacy and skill from Hong Kong which I believe would be the envy of any film maker in America or Great Britain entitled "In the Mood for Love". It is a slender story but is recounted with extraordinary skill in telling a story through pictures, which is what cinema is about. It tempts one to think that with the increasing numbers of Chinese in England we shall witness a great emerging talent in that area and probably among other ethnic minorities too.
The noble Baroness, Lady Rendell, asks whether,
"the arts and entertainment are keeping pace with … multicultural society in the United Kingdom".
Of course, that is not the case although it may be the case in London, Bradford and Bristol. Certainly in London, where the ethnic minorities now comprise 30 per cent of the population—I understand that figure will rise to 50 per cent shortly—there is a great deal of activity, regardless of the fact (this has been pointed out in, I believe, the rather misunderstood Parekh report) that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, by an oversight I am sure, failed to make any direct reference to multicultural activities in London.

1317
London Arts, the regional arts body under the Arts Council of England, does an enormous amount of work in London within a constrained budget to encourage all kinds of artistic expression such as theatre and writing. The amount of lottery money is pitifully small in this regard.
The role of broadcasting in this country is essential to encourage the arts and aid the growth of a genuinely multicultural Britain. I suggest that it is only through broadcasting that one will be able to promote the interesting and innovative works of our ethnic minorities. That is being done to a certain extent but if I understood correctly the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Alli, it needs to be done with much more energy and with much broader scope. I hope that the noble Lord will refer to that when he replies to the debate.
8.24 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Rendell, for giving us the opportunity to debate this matter. However, I am sure that we all regret the fact that we are allocated only three minutes in which to speak on such a vital issue.
The importance of diversity has been highlighted by my right honourable friend William Hague on a number of occasions, most recently to the Society of Editors last month. He said:
"Our nation is a nation of immigrants. Celts, Picts, Saxons, Angles, Normans, Jews, Huguenots, Indians, Pakistanis, Afro-Caribbeans, Bengalis. Chinese and countless others. These are the British people, all of them. It is what makes our country such an exciting and varied place to live. So we are proud of our ethnically diverse culture".
My main question for the Government is the following. When they prepared their reply to the Question of the noble Baroness, Lady Rendell, what method did they use to measure the extent to which the arts and entertainment have already, and should in the future, keep pace with advances towards a multicultural society? How will they answer that vital question with which the noble Baroness, Lady Rendell, ended her speech—are we getting there fast enough?
The important thing surely is for Britain's diverse communities to participate in mainstream arts and entertainment but without losing their own vital identity and culture. Noble Lords have mentioned some examples of good practice. I wholeheartedly congratulate those who have made progress. However, as noble Lords on all sides of the House have pointed out, there is so much more that must be done on race equality issues within the mainstream.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Rendell, that part of the answer to making better progress must surely be found in our lifelong education and how we learn to perceive the value of diversity. It is vital that our schools address all these issues. I shall be rather parochial tonight and refer to the Bishop David Brown School at Woking where I live. That school is working to achieve designated status as a specialist performing arts college. It promotes positive participation among girls and boys from all cultures in
1318
a town where about 10 per cent of the population has a Pakistani background and which also has significant Chinese and Italian communities. All of those populations are vibrant.
I visited the school earlier this year to see the work that it is doing. Drama gives students the opportunity to discuss racism, prejudice and bullying. Work across the whole curriculum gives students the chance to develop self-esteem, motivation and personal achievement. I wish them well. Their success serves our multicultural community well.
Of one thing I am sure; namely, that it is extremely difficult for the Minister to respond to the Question, even with his slightly longer speaking time. On a more serious note, it is vital for all of us as individuals to champion mainstream values that everyone can embrace, such as tolerance, mutual respect and the rich diversity of our country. We would all be the poorer without them.
8.27 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am delighted to respond to this extremely well informed and passionate debate on a subject which I believe everyone agrees is of enormous importance not just to our arts and entertainment but also to our society as a whole. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Rendell, for making it possible.
However, I must start by disagreeing with her slightly. I agree with her that it is unfortunate to talk about "ethnic minorities", and I do not intend to do so. However, she chose to refer instead to "Black or Asian". I suggest that the diversity goes a good deal wider than that. I refer, for example, to Greek and Turkish Cypriot, Irish, Balkan people, Jewish people—to whom the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, referred. Even within the term "Black and Asian", I do not think that it is sufficiently recognised how different a Black African from west or east Africa is from someone from south Asia or China or from the Caribbean.
I take my starting point from the word "diversity". The differences between these different communities and their arts are as great as the difference between them and the older communities who, as the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, rightly said, have been absorbed into British society over hundreds and probably thousands of years. It is the full variety and richness of our national identity which I want to see reflected in our creative and cultural activities. I want to see that applied all the way through our educational system, through our amateur arts and through the professional arts too. From the point of view of government, my starting point must be that if we are talking about resources and funding we must talk about them in total and then about the division for particular purposes.
In July, we announced the highest-ever levels of public support for the arts in England. Funding for the arts will rise from £238 million in 2000–01 to £338 million in 2003–04. The uplift will go to the Arts Council of England for allocation to its funded

1319
organisation, primarily through the English regional arts boards. Among others, the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, made proper reference to that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Rendell, repeated the statement which I first read in the report of the noble Lord, Lord Parekh, that only 0.02 per cent of the first £2 billion Arts Council lottery funding went to fund Black and Asian organisations. I do not contest that figure; neither do I defend it. Those were decisions taken before this Government came into existence. At that time, it is fair to say that the first priority was for capital infrastructure work after many years of neglect. I hope that it can be shown—I am not capable of doing so now—that that capital infrastructure expenditure in the first few years of arts lottery funding is open to artists from all ethnic origins.
However, there has been a substantial change in the policies of the Arts Council of England. The new six-year capital lottery programme is allotting at least £20 million to fund Black and Asian organisations covering new developments, theatres and individual projects. This will feed into the new major initiative of Diversity 2002.
A number of noble Lords made effective reference to the underfunding of the arts, in particular Black and Asian arts. I believe that the funding is there. I believe that it will be directed correctly. I listened carefully to what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Wakefield said about finance for infrastructure, which is recognised, and the need for proper funding priorities. The noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, spoke of her excellent 'work in the Arts Council. She will know that Naseem Khan to whom she referred is now doing excellent work in collaboration with the Council of Europe.
The noble Baroness, Lady Howells, spoke of her "alternative Tate Gallery" in Covent Garden. The noble Baroness will know that three out of the four Turner short-listed artists in the Tate Gallery are not UK born. So funding clearly is of enormous importance, and I think that we are responding.
I turn now to the entertainment part of the debate and what we call the "creative industries". That is far less industrial than it sounds. We are talking about the opportunities which exist in a multicultural society to encourage young people to be more innovative and creative and to use their skills for creative and cultural industry.
The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, asked how we measure whether we are responding adequately. The answer is that there is no strict measure, but I have pages of lists on the creative industries—advertising, architecture, the arts, craft, design, fashion, film, computer and video games, music and the performing arts, publishing, software, television and radio—where it seems to me as an outsider that multiculturalism comes naturally; there is not the same distinction that sometimes exists, regrettably, in the formal artistic institutions. Many speakers, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Rendell and Lady Crawley, referred to the way in which our creative industries are heavily multicultural, and quite right too.
1320
We have made it clear to the Arts Council of England that it has to respect cultural diversity. It has to commit itself, as I believe that it has done, to prioritising cultural diversity. I have referred to the Arts Council of England initiative, Diversity 2002. Throughout that year projects and events will bring lasting benefits to communities throughout England. It is also the year of the Queen's Golden Jubilee and of the hosting of the Commonwealth Games. The noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, referred to the fact that only £0.5 million has been allocated to that. I assure the noble Baroness that that is only the first step. That represents the set-out costs. That is not what will be available in the end. The noble Baroness should not contrast the figure unfavourably with the funding for the Year of the Artist.
Some wise words were spoken about broadcasting. Last year, Chris Smith called on the ITC, the Broadcasting Standards Commission and the BBC to review the way in which broadcasters represented diversity issues and lifestyles in their programme making and in their own operations. The noble Baroness, Lady Howells, is right to say that that is a matter of self-interest for them when they consider the considerable part of their audience who are affected.
I was glad that the noble Lord, Lord Alli, referred to the Cultural Diversity Network which launched action plans in October to encourage the modernisation of the portrayal of ethnic minorities in mainstream programming. All the broadcasters have committed themselves to turning plans into action. Again, I was glad to hear from the noble Lord. Lord Alli, about the plans of his company, Carlton. To take another example, Channel 4 will be raising its target for employees from ethnic minorities from 9 per cent to 11 per cent by 2003; and for senior employees to 8 per cent. It will create six posts for Black and Asian production staff on a fast-track programme to producer. It has instructed producers to include diversity information in all programme proposals.
That applies also to the DCMS. The noble Lord, Lord Alli, made that point; it is fair. I am not entirely satisfied with what I am able to say to him about that. It is true that Paul Udenze from the Drum in Birmingham, whom the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, will know, has been in the department shadowing the head of arts. It is true also that in the arts division of the DCMS we have had one of the 15 fellows under the ACE special programme, Andy Cheung, and he is here now.
However, my most important answer to the noble Lord, Lord Alli, is that the funding agreements that we have with all those arts bodies stress the need for a clear policy on cultural diversity and that it needs to be reflected in board and staff membership as well as in artists and funding.
I referred to the undoubted difficulty of measuring our achievements and whether we are keeping up. To do so would require many more resources than I have for a debate of this kind; but we recognise that support for the arts in the United Kingdom is central to support for our diverse communities which are the

1321
standard-bearers of our nation's cultural identity and history. I passed over the valuable reference of the noble Lord, Lord Alli, to the way in which our museums and galleries reflect our society. The test will be not whether there is toleration of diversity but whether there is enthusiasm about diversity. Again, that is yet to be shown.
The arts and entertainments sectors are at the forefront of multicultural society in the United Kingdom rather than behind. I close by referring to the fourth fundamental belief expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Parekh, at the beginning of his report. He talks about the need for society to be cohesive as well as respectful of diversity, fostering a common sense of belonging and shared identity. That is the right way to address these issues.

Disqualifications Bill
8.40 p.m.
House again in Committee.
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 8:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause—

Disqualifications Bill

  OFFICES OF PROFIT UNDER COMMONWEALTH OR FOREIGN GOVERNMENT
  (" . No person may be a member of the House of Commons who holds an office of profit under a Commonwealth or foreign government which, if it were an office of profit under the Crown, would disqualify him from membership of the House of Commons.").
  The noble Lord said: The new clause is self-explanatory. We have been anomaly spotting on the Bill and here is another one. Those who hold an office of profit under the Crown are not permitted to be Members of the House of Commons. A Member of Parliament who acquires an office of profit is immediately and automatically disbarred. Even such minor offices as steward of the Chiltern Hundreds or the Manor of Northstead disqualify a Member, as is well known. As my noble friend Lady Park pointed out earlier, some people holding valuable and respectable positions under the Crown are also disbarred.
  However, it turns out that someone who holds an office of profit under a foreign government is not disbarred. That is clearly an anomaly and the amendment would rectify it. I beg to move.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: Certain persons holding an office of profit under the Crown may not sit as Members of the House of Commons. The offices concerned are listed in the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975—an Act that I am sure is well known to the noble Lord. That Act specifically states that an office of profit is not a cause of disqualification unless listed in the Act. The amendment is in direct conflict with that. The office holders that it lists are disqualified from taking seats in the House of Commons because they are Crown appointees. Members of Parliament need to be
  1322
  sufficiently independent to perform their functions. It is not a matter of offices of profit, but of independence from the Crown.
  Successive governments have believed that it is not right to depart from the principles set out in the 1975 Act. The Bill would extend to Members of the Irish legislature the same right to sit as Members of the House of Commons as is available to members of Commonwealth legislatures. That has been knocked about in the Committee all evening and we all understand it.
  A citizen of Ireland or of a Commonwealth country may or may not sit as a member of that country's legislature, according to that country's law on disqualification. We do not believe that it would be right to impose a new restriction that could extend the scope of existing disqualifications of Commonwealth citizens. On that basis, I suggest that the amendment should be withdrawn.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: The purpose of the amendment has been achieved: it has shown how ridiculous the Bill is. The Minister's only defence, once again, is that the treatment of Members of the Irish legislature should he the same as that of Members of Commonwealth legislatures. We know perfectly well that no Member of a Commonwealth legislature has ever taken advantage of the provision or is likely to do so. The Minister's reason is empty.
  I appreciate that the purpose of the office of profit rules for the House of Commons is that Members of Parliament should be independent of the Crown. They should be even more independent of foreign governments. We have heard once again that the so-called anomaly that the Bill is supposed to remove is by no means the only anomaly. On the contrary, the Bill is littered with them. That makes us all the more suspicious as to the reasons for picking out the particular anomaly that the Bill addresses. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Lamont of Lerwick Lord Lamont of Lerwick moved Amendment No. 9:
  After Clause 1, insert the following new clause—

  ALLOWANCES FOR DUAL MEMBERSHIP OF LEGISLATURE OF IRELAND AND NORTHERN IRELAND ASSEMBLY
  (". Any person who is elected as a member of both the Northern Ireland Assembly and the legislature of Ireland shall receive no more than 50 per cent. of the office costs allowance payable to a member of the Northern Ireland Assembly.").
  The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 are self-explanatory. They may be regarded as frivolous or light-hearted. They provide that any dual members of the Northern Ireland Assembly and the legislature of Ireland should have no more than 50 per cent of the salary and the office costs allowance of a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly.
  I would not have spoken to the amendments if we had heard a satisfactory explanation of the Bill. The Minister may well tell me that we do not reduce the salary of a Member of the Scottish Parliament who is

  1323
  also a Member of the House of Commons, or a Member of the European Parliament who is also a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly or of the House of Commons, let alone of those who are Members of three assemblies. I am well aware that there are several such examples.
  However, the Government have made a threadbare case for the Bill. We have simply been told that they judge it to be right. They are not prepared to say why and think that it is no business of Parliament, although the Minister insists that we are scrutinising the Bill. I do not know how we can scrutinise anything if we do not receive any answers. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, told us that the Bill had been scrutinised with enormous care in the House of Commons in an all-night sitting. The fact is that there was so much outrage in the other place that they went on all night but they did not have adequate time to consider the Bill or to have a Report stage. The Government have made an inadequate case for the Bill, so an inadequate salary ought to be paid. I beg to move.
  Viscount Cranborne: It may come as a surprise to my noble friend Lord Lamont, but I feel constrained to disagree with him on the amendment for two reasons. First, were this absurd Bill to become law—I sincerely hope that it will not—any Member of both the Dail and the British House of Commons would be taking on a heavy burden if they were to carry out their duties satisfactorily. I suspect that, for purely practical reasons, the job may be impossible without adequate support.
  If this absurd Bill were to pass, the eventuality set out so clearly by my noble friend Lord Cope would follow as night follows day. Various members of Sinn Fein/IRA would attempt to represent their Northern Ireland constituencies in the Dail and would sit in the Dail by virtue of their 26 constituencies. If they were to do that, we should certainly find that they would be highly stretched if they were not able to finance adequate administrative support to sustain both offices. I suspect that, rather than needing only 50 per cent of the allowances from each Parliament, they would need rather more than 100 per cent in order to sustain not only their travel arrangements but also the substantial staffs that they would require.
  Therefore, I advocate the reverse of my noble friend. I advocate that perhaps 150 per cent of the allowances should be available to such people. I do so secure in the knowledge that that would draw attention to the manifest absurdities of the provisions of this Bill in such a way as to ensure that the peoples of both the Irish Republic and the United Kingdom would laugh this measure to the scorn it deserves instead of giving it the lack of attention which so far they have done.
  Lord Molyneaux of Killead: I rise briefly to support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Lamont of Lerwick. With his vast Treasury experience, I am sure that he will have sounded out the Exchequers n both capitals and that they will be only too willing to finance this added expenditure. They
  1324
  may even be able to take on board the suggestion made by the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne. It may involve a modest increase in income tax in both jurisdictions, but I am sure that this is such a precious Bill that no one would balk at that additional expenditure and imposition of taxation.
  Baroness Park of Monmouth: While deferring to the noble Viscount, I should like to recall the words of the previous Speaker in order to support this discussion. When, as Speaker, she made her decision to refuse facilities to the two Sinn Fein Members who would not take their oath, she said:
  "I declined to allow those Members passes to the Palace of Westminster, because that would provide automatic access to many of the facilities not open to them. I told them that they were in effect asking for associate membership of this House. Such a status does not exist".
  It seems to me that anything that condones the idea that they might simultaneously fight an issue in the Dail and speak to an issue in the House of Commons is so absurd that it needs to be highlighted. That is why I see the point of the intervention of my noble friend Lord Cranborne. However, I still believe that we have had a clear indication that it is not proper that they should receive such allowances. I assume that they could receive them only if they were carrying out the necessary duties, which they cannot do.
  Viscount Cranborne: Before my noble friend sits down, perhaps I may ask her a question. She suggested rightly that it might be difficult for a Member with a dual mandate to be in two different places at once. Does my noble friend believe that it would be possible to introduce a form of electronic voting so that, if there were a three-line whip, someone with a dual mandate could vote electronically in Westminster if they happened to be in Dublin?
  Baroness Park of Monmouth: Perhaps the Committee will allow me to reply to that. It rather reminds me of the recommendations of the Foreign Policy Centre that, instead of having embassies, we should have websites and virtual embassies. Therefore, if we are talking about virtual Members of the House of Commons and of the Dail, there is a great deal to be said for that idea.
  Lord Laird: I have a slight difficulty with this proposal. Over the past few seconds I have given considerable thought to this amendment a rid am rather torn between the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, and that of the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne. I understand the status of the two Sinn Fein Members in another place to be that of MPs elect. They are not currently taking their salaries. Therefore, there does not appear to be much pressure on the recipients of this piece of legislation to look for financial reward.
  On the other hand, I was very taken by the argument of the noble Viscount regarding the amount of work that would be involved in being in at least two, and possibly three, places at one time. I was then persuaded by the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux,

  1325
  with regard to the Exchequer—particularly in Dublin, which appears to be the recipient of a large amount of tax as a result of the Celtic Tiger.
  I speak from my own experience as chairman of an Ulster Scots agency which is part of a cross-Border language implementation body. I have been to Dublin on a number of occasions to discuss matters with the authorities there. It is possible to do so without being a Member of the Irish Parliament. I have discussed with them issues that are of interest to the cross-Border body, such as the fact that every sign throughout the island of Ireland will have to be in Ulster Scots as well as in Irish. It is stated in the Belfast Agreement that parity must mean total equality in the North and South. Such a move will be very expensive as every sign must be changed.
  Parity also means that when legislation such as this refers to the name of the Irish Parliament in Irish, it will also have to refer to it in Ulster Scots. The Ulster Scots word for Parliament is "Tolsel". Therefore, I would require future legislation of this type to refer to the Irish Parliament not only in Irish but in Ulster Scots as well. I repeat that it is stated in the Belfast Agreement that parity must mean total equality in the North and South.
  As chairman of a cross-Border implementation body, I would not be prepared to cherry-pick the Belfast Agreement. I am sure that no one in this House would like me to do so and no one in Dublin wants me to do so. However, I recognise, and wish to place on the record in your Lordships' House, the generosity of taxpayers in the Irish Republic. In implementing the Belfast Agreement they will put up billions—not millions—of pounds in changing signs throughout the Irish Republic so that they appear in Ulster Scots as well as in Irish.
  In addition there is the whole business of changing the curriculum. It will be necessary to ensure that in history as taught throughout the Irish Republic references to the British and the Ulster Scots are treated in a positive, not a negative, fashion. That may also prove to be expensive. I take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, in relation to this matter. A large amount of money can be put into implementing the Belfast Agreement.
  We would also need to ensure that, wherever people seek a job in public service in the island of Ireland—nowadays they require qualifications in Irish—parity—
  Lord Dubs: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way because I am about to make another hostile comment. I cannot follow what the noble Lord's speech has to do with the amendments. I understand the point that he makes, but not in relation to the amendments.
  Lord Laird: In his time, the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, was one of the most popular Ministers to have come from this House. In the past I have regaled many stories about the noble Lord and, given the time, I am sure that I could do so again.
  1326
  However, my point is that I am interested in the concept of expenses. As I understand it, this amendment concerns expenses. I am talking about the availability of funding in the Irish Republic to implement the Belfast Agreement. I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, that there is plenty of money available in the Irish Exchequer to implement the Belfast Agreement. I cited proof of that from my involvement as chairman of the language implementation body. It will cost the southern Irish taxpayers billions of pounds.
  The television company in the south used to be called RTE but it will soon have another Ulster Scots name. It has recently introduced another version of "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?" Anybody who is lucky enough to be elected to three assemblies should, in future, be part of that process and perhaps we should suggest that they can phone a friend and perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, might be that friend.
  I am very taken with the arguments put forward by the noble Viscount. I have listened carefully to my distinguished colleague here, my noble friend Lord Molyneaux and the point which he made about the Exchequer. We should not be reducing expenses for anybody who falls into the category of being a multimember of as many parliaments as he possibly can.
  9 p.m.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: The noble Lord, Lord Laird, was looking forward to future amendments, perhaps to be tabled on Report, which we may have to consider. In no way do I want to equate myself with Solomon but, to a certain extent, I am in a similar dilemma to that in which he found himself on one occasion, in that my noble friend Lord Lamont supports the amendments and my noble friend Lord Cranborne opposes them.
  I do not believe that anybody need worry about the Exchequer because, if my expectation is correct that it is the members of Sinn Fein who will take up those opportunities and they will not take up their seats at Westminster, then they will not receive the money for that half of their duties. No doubt they will earn whatever is paid to them by the Dail.
  Viscount Cranborne: Of course, my noble friend is right about that and in his usual gentlemanly way did not point out directly that I had failed to observe that. Nevertheless, we are talking about tidiness here. I am sure that my noble friend will admit that it is at least theoretically possible that circumstances might change and in any piece of legislation we should anticipate that, if not a member of Sinn Fein, some other dual mandate person might find it possible to take the oath in both places.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: Yes, indeed. We are not excused from addressing the point behind the

  1327
  amendment. But in that regard I support my noble friend Lord Cranborne on Amendment No. 9 and my noble friend Lord Lamont on Amendment No. 10.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The power to determine the salaries and expenses of the Northern Ireland Assembly Members, which is what these two amendments relate to, is in the Northern Ireland Assembly itself. It would therefore be for the Assembly to determine whether or not the salaries and allowances of its members should be reduced, as proposed in those amendments, or increased, as proposed by the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne. No legislative provision is required to allow the Assembly to achieve this.
  The Committee will know that Section 47(4) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 requires a reduction in the salaries where a member is not only a member of the Northern Ireland Assembly but also a Member of the House of Commons and/or the European Parliament. Members of the Committee will know that the Northern Ireland Assembly, which has a discretion in relation to what the deduction should be, reduced by two-thirds the salaries of Northern Ireland Assembly members who also had mandates elsewhere.
  Lord Lamont of Lerwick: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for that explanation. I am grateful also to my noble friends who have spoken. When the noble and learned Lord said that salaries are in the hands of the Assembly, I began to get very alarmed because I thought that that could be a real licence to print money if the members there could determine their own salaries. But then I recalled that that, of course, is the situation in the House of Commons where Ministers, rather as the noble and learned Lord has reminded us regularly in this debate, remind the House of Commons and the House of Lords that that is a matter for them to decide. Of course, that is not so in Northern Ireland because, in fact, the Executive rules, so the dictum of the noble and learned Lord that the Assembly determines salaries may not be quite as alarming as it appears at first sight.
  I am not entirely surprised that my noble friend Lord Cranborne took a different view. At one stage, I thought he was going to suggest a manuscript amendment. Indeed, while I am speaking, it is still possible for him to write out a manuscript amendment and I am sure that we should be able to have a further debate on the opposite proposition.
  My noble friend Lady Park rightly referred to the ruling of the Speaker and the attempts that members of Sinn Fein have made to enjoy the benefits of the facilities of Westminster and the office costs allowance without taking their seats. We are all extremely grateful to the Speaker of the House of Commons for having taken such a robust line. That was one reason for tabling these amendments.
  The noble Lord, Lord Laird, spoke about cross-border institutions. That made me reflect that one of the points to which we object in this Bill is that the Government are seeking to make the Northern Ireland Assembly into a cross-border institution. That is the
  1328
  effect of this Bill: to make the status of Northern Ireland ambiguous; to make the Assembly into a cross-border institution. That is why we feel so strongly about this.
  I do not propose to press these amendments to a Division, although if we ever reached the stage where the salaries or office costs allowances were being paid to Sinn Fein members, goodness knows where the money would end up. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 10 not moved.]
  Lord Lamont of Lerwick Lord Lamont of Lerwick moved Amendment No. 11:
  After Clause 1, insert the following new clause—

  DISQUALIFICATION FROM MINISTERIAL OFFICE IN THE UNITED KINGDOM
  (". No person elected to the Parliament of the United Kingdom and also to the legislature of the Republic of Ireland may become a Minister of the Crown.").
  The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 12 to 14. The amendments put forward a number of different propositions. The more we go into this Bill, the more complex the ramifications of it become and the more varied the number of situations which arise. The Bill is not at all what it first appears. It has multiple consequences. Thus, in these debates, we have been forced to table amendments which would have the effect of having no Ministers of other countries in either the House of Commons or the Northern Ireland Assembly; amendments, to which we shall come later, which ensure that Irish Ministers and chairmen of committees of the Irish parliament should not be Northern Ireland Ministers; that junior Irish Ministers should not be Northern Ireland Ministers; that Irish MPs should not be Northern Ireland Ministers; that Irish committee chairman should not be Northern Ireland Ministers, and that Irish Ministers and committee chairmen of the Irish Parliament should not be Northern Ireland committee chairmen. The combinations are infinite. However, in Amendments Nos. 11 to 14 we propose, only for dual Members of the House of Commons and the Dail, that it should not be possible to become a UK Minister. Amendment No. 12 proposes alternatively that it should not be possible for a Dail Member to be a UK Minister. This concerns the conflict of loyalties which we have continually emphasised in these debates.
  Amendment No. 14 proposes that Irish MPs of either House should not be Speaker or Deputy Speaker in the House of Commons. I accept that it is for the House of Commons to determine, through an election, who should be Speaker. I was moved to table the amendment because it seemed rather bizarre that the Speaker of the House of Commons could in theory be an Irish Member of Parliament. However, I say in advance, even without hearing the Minister's reply, that that is not an amendment I wish to press.
  Amendment No. 13 is important. It proposes that an Irish Minister should not be a UK Minister. I hope here that I might have some encouragement from the Liberal Democrat Benches. So far, the Liberal Democrats have not contributed to our debate in any way. However, I hope we may hear their views on this amendment. It was put forward by Simon Hughes in the House of Commons. It was presumably drafted by him or his office. Speaking for the Liberal Democrats from the Front Bench, he stated that he had gone along with the principles of the Bill, but that having done that, he drew a line. He stated
  "In our view, no one should be able to hold simultaneously ministerial office in the Irish Government and ministerial office in the British Government or in the Northern Ireland Government … We have always argued that there is no necessary incompatibility with being a member of two legislatures. We share that view with the Government".
  But he went on to say:
  "There is a strong conflict of interests. Someone who is a member of the Government in one country cannot simultaneously and without conflicts of interest arising be a member of the Government of another sovereign country."
  He continued that, although it would be unlikely that a British Prime Minister would choose such a person to go into his government, nonetheless, as has been evident from everything we have discussed, the Bill was dealing with things which are theoretical and probably unlikely to occur. He stated:
  "The Minister asked me whether what I described would be likely in the real world. The entire Bill is in large measure about things that do not happen in that world. The Bill is about whether Members of Commonwealth Parliaments would be Members of the Westminster Parliament. The Minister said that there are not any such Members in that position and there never have been. I understand that no one has previously served in a Parliament in this country while simultaneously being a Member of a Commonwealth country Parliament".—[Official Report, Commons, 25/1/00, cols. 493 and 494.]
  Needless to say, he went on to state that he supported his own amendment and that he did not believe that someone should be able to hold ministerial office in the Irish Government and the British Government or the Northern Ireland Government at the same time. That was the view of the Liberal Democrats. I therefore hope that the Liberal Democrat spokesman will give Amendment No. 13 his warm support.
  Viscount Cranborne: I understand the reason why my noble friend tabled the amendments. He is right to point out that if a conflict of loyalties exists for a Back Bench Member of both sovereign parliaments, an even greater conflict of interest and loyalty will exist for people who hold any form of office, not only in the sovereign parliament but also in the subsidiary parliaments and assemblies of the United Kingdom. I do not think I need to add to the points raised by the noble Lord. They are evidence enough of the difficulties of the Bill as brought before us and why we oppose it in principle.
  However, there is another difficulty which the Government need to address. It is something which I suspect has worried Members of the Committee in
  1330
  relation to other pieces of legislation ever since the 1997 general election. The devolution legislation, particularly for Scotland, raised precisely this point. One of the glories of your Lordships' Chamber is that every Member of it is equal. Whatever we feel about each other, our experience and our capabilities, we are all equal and theoretically are able to perform jobs open to us, whether as members of Government, Opposition Front Bench or as members or chairmen of Select Committees. I believe I am right in saying that the same is true of another place.
  One of the difficulties thrown up by the West Lothian question is how it is possible effectively to create two classes of Member in another place. We know that it is possible for a Member of Parliament from a Scottish constituency to vote on matters not devolved to English regions but devolved to the Scottish Parliament. And this Bill is providing a classic locus of conflict. My noble friend and I strongly believe that there is a conflict of interest which is insoluble for members of two sovereign parliaments. As he eloquently made clear, any office holder covered by Amendments Nos. 11 to 14, will have an even greater conflict of interest. It is therefore beyond peradventure undesirable that such office holders should be members of another sovereign parliament. But at the same time, as soon as we accept my noble friend's amendments, we immediately create two classes of Member in another place. That is inevitable when we get ourselves into the difficulties that the Government have got themselves into over Scottish devolution and, equally, over this Bill.
  When confronted with what seemed to me two irreconcilable matters, one had to make a choice, just as the leader of my party made a choice with his slogan, "English votes for English laws". I can understand why he did that and I am sure that, like me, he felt that that was the least bad option open to us for the West Lothian question, even though it raises all sorts of difficulties of a kind of which my noble friend will be more than well aware.
  My noble friend has done us a great service by tabling Amendments Nos. 11 to 14. He is right in saying that the conflict of loyalties for office holders of this kind is greater even than it would be for members of two sovereign parliaments. But he is introducing another difficulty which will need resolution if, as I hope, he succeeds in this amendment; that is, how is another place to deal with having two classes of Member? As I repeated ad nauseam in the debates on reform of your Lordships' House, that is profoundly undesirable. There is a distinct difference between taking different routes to membership of an Assembly and, once there, having different rights within it. That is a conflict I am sorry to find. I do not blame my noble friend; I am sure he is well aware of it. And he is right that, when one is forced to make a judgment in these matters, to try to resolve the question of inherent conflict of interest seems to be more important.
  That shows that the Government are opening a can which will lead them into all sorts of difficulties, comparable to those they are beginning to face in the native heath of the noble and learned Lord.
  9.15 p.m.
  Lord Molyneaux of Killead: As someone who sat through many debates in the other place as far back as the home rule and devolution for Scotland debates in the time of the Callaghan government, it is true that there has never been a clear resolution of the difficulty of what he rightly calls two classes of member. But at least in one way or another they are paying taxation to the same Treasury. But in this Bill, without giving much thought to it, we are creating a third-class member from another sovereign country who presumably will be permitted to vote on expenditure and taxation within the United Kingdom, although not himself contributing to taxation within it. I agree with the noble Viscount that that is not something we can lightly pass over. We are having problems with Scotland already. If the Northern Ireland Assembly reaches the point where it is given powers to increase taxation, then naturally we shall spotlight the anomaly contained in these provisions.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: I assume that most of your Lordships will agree that these are relatively unlikely possibilities being provided for in this block of amendments. Both ministerial speakers in the debates today have based their recommendations for this Bill on the idea that the whole thing is an unlikely possibility. It is we who believe that the opportunities offered by the Bill may lead to very serious consequences. If we are to correct anomalies, those addressed by this block of amendments seem to be extremely interesting and should certainly be considered.
  I am particularly attracted to Amendment No. 13. I believe that the extracts from the speech of Mr Simon Hughes in another place were particularly forceful, not least because of their origin and speaking on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. It would be particularly damaging if that particular loophole was not closed and an attempt was made to use it.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: We have had quite a lengthy discourse on this particular group of amendments. I am not quite sure that they were worth it, but obviously I have to respect the Members of the Committee and the way in which they address the amendments.
  The noble Lord, Lord Lamont, really gave the game away when he said that much of what they sought to deal with was theoretical. I felt that throughout much of the discussion. The noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, raised an interesting point about a conflict of interest if Irish Ministers were to hold ministerial office in the UK Government. One can accept that such a potential for conflict could exist in a particular circumstance, but I do not believe that it is necessary to legislate to prevent it because the existing protections, in our view, are more than sufficient.
  These amendments seek to add additional protection against potential conflicts. All the offices to which the amendments refer, unlike those in the Northern Ireland Assembly to which the Bill applies, are offices filled by election or appointment by the
  1332
  Prime Minister or the House of Commons. They are free to choose not to elect or appoint to the office a member of the Irish legislature or the Irish Government.
  As regards the Northern Ireland Ministers and the chairman and deputy chairman of the statutory committees of the Assembly, those posts are filled by the d'Hondt system which allocates posts according to the number of seats held by parties in the Assembly. We believe that the provisions in the Bill are necessary to prevent a possible conflict of interest where the same individual holds offices as specified in the Bill in both the Assembly and the Irish legislature. Clearly, the same situation does not apply to appointments made by the Prime Minister or the House of Commons. For those reasons, we believe that the proposed amendments—no doubt well intentioned in their strange way—are completely unnecessary.
  Lord Lamont of Lerwick: I am sorry that the Minister thought that to spend 15 or 17 minutes after he had spoken was rather a long time for such amendments. No doubt he would take an even dimmer view of the length of time that the House of Commons took considering the Bill. It was forced to sit all night because of the way in which the Bill was presented. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, called that "scrutiny". To most of us it seemed farcical. It was put forward with such a timetable without an adequate reason being offered.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: I thank the noble Lord for giving way. In moving the amendment, he said—I paraphrase—that he thought they were dealing with somewhat of a theoretical situation. That was the context in which I made my observation.
  Lord Lamont of Lerwick: I believe that they were dealing with a theoretical possibility, but, as Mr Simon Hughes said in another place, the whole Bill deals with a theoretical possibility. It is one which the noble Viscount, my honourable friends and I hope will never come about. Our objection to the Bill is that we do not know what is theoretical and what is real. We do not know what is around the corner because the Government will give no explanation of why this mysterious Bill which no one wants is being put forward. In constitutional terms, it is an outrage that the Bill is being put forward.
  On a previous amendment, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, accused me of believing in conspiracies. I have every reason to do so when I see the policy document put forward by Sinn Fein and when the Bill was justified simply in terms of administrative tidying up. I could give Ministers thousands of anomalies in our taxation legislation, some of which I created, and I should be delighted if they would tidy them all up tomorrow. When an anomaly exists, it is not normal that Ministers rush forward and publish something almost on Christmas Eve so that political parties have no communication

  1333
  through official channels nor an opportunity to consult outside bodies. The Bill was introduced in January, just after the House of Commons returned—
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I think that he over-eggs the argument. Yes, the Bill was published in December and there was a full month for it to be commented on by other parties. I understand that the parties in Northern Ireland were made fully aware of the publication of the Bill and there was that period in which they could have passed extra comment on it.
  Lord Lamont of Lerwick: The Minister sa s that there was a full month. The Bill was published three days before Christmas, on the day when Parliament rose and everyone went off on holiday. No one was going to be aware of press releases and publications between 22nd December and 2nd or 3rd January. The Bill then had its Second Reading and Committee stage—there was no Report stage—in the first week of Parliament's return. I do not believe that that is adequate consultation.
  Viscount Cranborne: I am grateful to my noble friend for giving way. He had enormous experience of introducing and promoting legislation when he was a Minister in another place. Did he ever introduce a Bill purely for administrative convenience and without explaining to another place whether there was a demand for it? Did he explain whether he had taken soundings on such a Bill and, if he had, during his explanation for introducing it, did he fail to say who was in favour of it and why?
  Lord Lamont of Lerwick: I must confess that I introduced many measures for which there was no demand—indeed, there was positive opposition! However, I hope that I have always tried to the best of my ability to explain why I thought a measure was necessary even if the rest of the world did not. It seems to me that either you explain why something is necessary or you explain who wants it. We have received no explanation of the Bill and to hear it described as tidying up an anomaly, when the anomaly has been no obstacle to anything that has happened so far in the real world, merely fuels one's suspicions that other things are going on and that the Bill is designed only as part of the appeasement of Sinn Fein/IRA that has characterised what the Government have done.
  We are moving into a world in which morality and common sense are suspended, in which Ministers say, "We don't know who fired a rocket at MI6", and in which we preach to other countries about what they should do about people who have abused human rights. What on earth is the meaning of incorporating the European Convention on Human Rights into British law when we do nothing to arrest those who torture and knee-cap people? The European Convention on Human Rights and its prohibition on torture has no meaning when applied to governments. In this country, it has meaning only when applied to
  1334
  the action of people such as members of the IRA. It is a farce for people on the Benches opposite to preach the merits of human rights and of incorporating the European Convention on Human Rights into British law when they do nothing about the right of people not to be tortured by the IRA. They set aside the judgments of courts and release prisoners, yet preach to the new democratically-elected President of Serbia how he should deal with so-called men of violence in his own country. However, I must not digress.
  The Minister did not deal in any way with the question raised by my noble friend Lord Cranborne about reproduction of the Scottish question and the creation of two classes of members, or, as the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, said, the creation of three classes of members.
  We are not getting very far. However, I believe that Amendment No. 13 is compelling. I very much agree with the words of Simon Hughes in another place:
  "In our view, no one should be able to hold simultaneously ministerial office in the Irish Government and ministerial office in the British Government or in the Northern Ireland Government … There is a strong conflict of interests. Someone who is a member of the Government in one country cannot simultaneously and without conflicts of interest arising be a member of the Government of another sovereign country".—[Official Report, Commons, 25/1/00; col. 493.]
  It is Mr Hughes' amendment that I put forward. I propose to divide the Committee on that amendment, and I assume that in so doing I shall have the support of the Liberal Democrats.
  9.30 p.m.
  Lord Smith of Clifton: Before the noble Lord sits down, he has endeavoured, quite successfully, to goad me into rising to speak. The reason I have not spoken to this matter is that earlier today the Conservative Front Bench protested about the length of Committee stages. This evening we have been subjected to filibuster on the part of the Conservative Benches. I am certain that my honourable friend in another place would not want his arguments to be prayed in aid in that filibuster, and that is the reason for my silence.
  Viscount Cranborne: Before the noble Lord sits down, how does he justify the accusation of a filibuster?
  Lord Smith of Clifton: One has had repetition, circumlocution and, frankly, Second Reading-type debates in Committee.
  Lord Lamont of Lerwick: I am dismayed and astonished by the observations of the Liberal Democrats. I am surprised that they cannot support the amendment as drafted by their own spokesman. Like Mr Hughes, I regard this issue as of considerable importance. He agreed with some of the points aired in another place in Committee. It is utterly wrong to suggest that there has been filibustering. We have had relatively short debates on the individual amendments. The Minister complained that we had taken 15 minutes for one amendment. If a filibuster was going

  1335
  on several hours might be thought to be appropriate. I do not see how 15 minutes to deal with four amendments can be described as a filibuster. I do not wish to prolong this debate. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 11. I shall not move Amendment No. 12 but shall put Amendment No. 13—the Liberal Democrats' amendment—to a vote in the Division Lobby.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 12 not moved.]
  Lord Lamont of Lerwick Lord Lamont of Lerwick moved Amendment No. 13:
  After Clause 1, insert the following new clause—

  DISQUALIFICATION FROM MINISTERIAL OFFICE IN THE UNITED KINGDOM (NO. 3)
  (".—(1) No person may be appointed to ministerial office in the Government of the United Kingdom if he is a member of the Government of Ireland.
  (2) A minister in the government of the United Kingdom ceases to hold office on becoming a minister in the Government of Ireland.").
  The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 13.
  9.35 p.m.
  On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 13) shall be agreed to?
  Their Lordships divided: Contents, 22; Not-Contents, 75.

  Division No. 2

  CONTENTS

  Blatch, B.

  Lyell, L.

  Bridgeman, V.

  Mayhew of Twysden, L.

  Burnham, L. [Teller]

  Molyneaux of Killead, L.

  Byford, B.

  Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

  Cope of Berkeley, L.

  Noakes, B.

  Cranborne, V.

  Palmer, L.

  Elton, L.

  Park of Monmouth, B.

  Laird, L.

  Pearson of Rannoch, L.

  Lamont of Lerwick, L.

  Rogan, L.

  Lindsay, E.

  Seccombe, B. [Teller]

  Luke, L.

  Skidelsky, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Ahmed, L.

  Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B

  Amos, B.

  Desai, L.

  Andrews, B.

  Dholakia, L.

  Archer of Sandwell, L.

  Dixon, L.

  Ashton of Upholland, B.

  Dubs, L.

  Bach, L.

  Eatwell, L.

  Bassam of Brighton, L.

  Elder, L.

  Berkeley, L.

  Evans of Parkside, L.

  Bernstein of Craigweil, L

  Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

  Brennan, L.

  Falconer of Thoroton, L.

  Brett, L.

  Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

  Burlison, L.

  Faulkner of Worcester, L.

  Carter, L. [Teller]

  Filkin, L.

  Chandos, V.

  Gilbert, L.

  Cohen of Pimlico, B.

  Goldsmith, L.

  Crawley, B.

  Goudie, B.

  Currie of Marylebone, L.

  Gould of Potternewton, B.

  Davies of Coity, L.

  Grabiner, L.

  Davies of Oldham, L.

  Grenfell, L.

  1336

  Hamwee, B.

  MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

  Hardy of Wath, L.

  Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L

  Harris of Haringey, L.

  Maddock, B.

  Harrison, L.

  Morgan, L.

  Haskel, L.

  Prashar, B.

  Hayman, B.

  Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

  Hollis of Heigham, B.

  Rendell of Babergh, B.

  Hoyle, L.

  Renwick of Clifton, L.

  Hunt of Chesterton, L.

  Sainsbury of Turville, L.

  Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

  Sawyer, L.

  Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

  Simon, V.

  Smith of Clifton, L.

  Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord Privy Seal)

  Taylor of Blackburn, L.

  Turner of Camden, B.

  Judd, L.

  Warner, L.

  Lockwood, B.

  Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

  Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

  Whitty, L.

  Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

  Winston, L.

  McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

  Woolmer of Leeds, L.

  Young of Old Same, B.

  Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
  9.43 p.m.
  [Amendment No. 14 not moved.]
  Clause 2 [Disqualification for Ministerial office in Northern Ireland]:
  Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 15:
  Clause 2, page 1, line 13, after ("Minister") insert ("as Presiding Officer or as Deputy Presiding Officer").
  The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I wish to discuss the other amendments in the grouping. All the amendments refer to qualifications required or disqualifications provided for the officers of the Northern Ireland Assembly. The previous group of amendments concerned disqualifications for UK Ministers. I was interested to note that, in the Division, the Liberal Democrats voted against their own amendment. I suppose that is life, but. I hope that the Minister did not confuse them into going through the wrong Lobby.
  This group of amendments concerns the disqualifications for the officers of the Northern Ireland Assembly; namely, the presiding officer, the deputy presiding officer, the chairman and deputy chairman of Assembly committees and so forth. Amendment No. 33A, tabled in the name of certain noble Lords opposite, concerns the Northern Ireland Assembly Commission.
  Many of these bodies are appointed by a complex d'Hondt procedure, invented by Professor d'Hondt. That means that the choice of those who come to hold the various offices is not always in the gift of any one individual. In the previous amendment we discussed Ministers of the UK Government, the choice of which is clearly in the gift of the Prime Minister of the day. In that case, he or she can be expected to look after the national interest, which makes it slightly less likely that the eventualities foreseen in those amendments would occur. However, so far as concerns this group of amendments, it is quite likely that eventualities could turn out in the way we are seeking to protect against.
  Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, made the point in the earlier amendment by referring ahead to government amendments which cover Northern Ireland Ministers. The basic proposition behind the amendments in my name in this grouping is that the presiding officer or his deputy, and, for that matter, the chairmen of the various Assembly committees—they will be important people working in the Assembly—should be in a similar position to the Northern Ireland Ministers themselves. I beg to move.
  9.45 p.m.
  Lord Rogan: I wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 17, 24, 33A and 45. Amendment No. 17 has a clear purpose; namely, that of placing the presiding officer, the deputy presiding officer, committee chairmen and deputy chairmen within the same restrictions as those which apply to the First and Deputy First Minister and those which apply to Ministers and junior Ministers.
  Just as Ministers, whether they be First, Deputy or junior, should not be Ministers in the Government of Ireland, neither should the presiding officer be capable of being a Minister in the Government of the Republic of Ireland. The presiding officer or any Speaker of any House has an implicit duty to act even-handedly towards all members of that assembly, irrespective of their political outlook.
  That duty will be difficult enough with the Speaker being an elected Member of the Assembly, never mind being a member of the government of another country. How, then, could a Minister of the Government of Ireland conceivably be effective as a presiding officer? This aspect of Amendment No. 17 is perfectly logical, and even more so in the case of committee chairmen.
  The committee chairmen aspect of Amendment No. 17 is more important than that of the presiding officer. As the Bill stands, it will always remain a possibility that the presiding officer is a member of the Government of Ireland. However, according to the Bill, it is more a probability that, by virtue of d'Hondt, a committee chairman will, at some point in time, be a Member of the Government of Ireland.
  With d'Hondt being used as the procedure for appointing committee chairs, parties with a minor level of support are, via d'Hondt, able to appoint a chairman or deputy chairman. Indeed, d'Hondt empowers minority parties to select a chairman. It is not, therefore, beyond the realms of possibility that Sinn Fein could appoint someone who was a member of the Assembly and a member of the Government of Ireland to a committee chair. Even if the vast majority of the Assembly members opposed the appointment, even if it was cross-community, it would have no effect on the appointment.
  It must be remembered that, via d'Hondt, the Progressive Unionist Party, with two seats in the Assembly—which is not even 2 per cent of the seats in the Northern Ireland Assembly—was able to nominate the chairman of the Audit Committee. The Alliance Party, with just six seats—just under
  1338
  6 per cent of the seats in the Assembly—was able to nominate a committee chairman for the Enterprise, Trade and Investment Committee.
  I have not addressed the issue of conflict of interests. However, I believe that what I have said already is sufficient for one to conclude that the presiding officer and committee chairmen should be in the same category as Ministers and junior Ministers in the Northern Ireland Assembly.
  Turning briefly to Amendment No. 24, it will be clear that the amendment has the same raison d'être as Amendment No. 17 but concerns a slightly different scenario. Amendment No. 17 would apply to a situation where a person is a member of the Government of Ireland and then attempts to hold office in the Executive. Amendment No. 24 applies to the situation where a person is an office holder in Northern Ireland and then becomes a Minister in the Government of the Republic of Ireland. These two amendments are sides of the same coin.
  Similarly, Amendments Nos. 33A and 45, although not sides of the same coin, concern the same point. These two amendments seek to exclude Ministers in the Republic of Ireland who are sitting in the Northern Ireland Assembly from becoming a commissioner in the Northern Ireland Assembly Commission. The function of the Northern Ireland Assembly Commission, inter alia, is to provide the property, staff and services required for the Assembly to function.
  However, I shall make two other points on roles that commissioners have undertaken. With respect to the issue of the flying of the flag, a member of the commission, acting as a commissioner, recently announced in the Assembly that the flag will be flown from parliament buildings on the stipulated 17 days until the Assembly can agree otherwise. How could we have a Minister of the Government of Ireland taking such a decision as a commissioner and yet retaining the confidence of the population of Northern Ireland?
  A second point on the commission concerns the role of appointing staff. The commission makes appointments to positions such as the examiner of statutory rules for the Assembly. How can a Minister from the Government of Ireland judge such a key appointment within a legal system and legislative process which is alien to them, they having experience of a system based on a written constitution?
  It is clear that the Northern Ireland Assembly Commission should not be ignored. It is an important body and the role of a commissioner is important. It is extremely unlikely that the commission could retain the confidence of the population of Northern Ireland if a Minister of the Government of Ireland were to be seen taking decisions such as those of a commissioner.
  I hope that the Minister will consider these amendments and reflect on what has been said. We should try to improve draft legislation—even a piece of draft legislation as unnecessary and poorly justified as this.
  Viscount Cranborne: I support the noble Lord, Lord Rogan. It is clear that this group of amendments concern not only preserving the neutrality of the presiding officer of the Assembly and other office holders, but making sure that it is seen to be preserved. We are yet again in the vexed area of conflict of interest that has dogged this Bill from the beginning.
  It is surely in the nature of a Minister to be partisan. It is his or her business to support the actions of the government of whom he or she is a member. Is it not, therefore, self-evident, merely taking Amendment No. 15, that it would be wholly incompatible for an Irish Minister, or indeed a British Minister, to become presiding officer of the Assembly and for the Minister concerned to be able to pretend that he or she could swap hats depending on which chair he or she was sitting in at the time?
  We know, if only from the identity of the present presiding officer of the Assembly and his party, that perceived neutrality is particularly important. I suspect that he was selected as the nearest thing to the middle of the spectrum in Northern Ireland that could be found. It seems to me that, however unlikely this eventuality might be, it would be deeply reassuring, at least, if even the unlikely eventuality of an Irish Minister occupying any of the offices listed in these amendments were legislated against and enshrined as an impossibility.
  Lord Laird: I join other noble Lords in supporting the amendments, particularly Amendment No. 33A, which refers to the Assembly Commission. It is not fully understood that the commission is a most important body within the Assembly, having overall control under Section 40 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 for,
  "the property, staff and services required for the Assembly's purposes".
  It is not widely appreciated, but the commission looks after the personnel and recruitment of staff for the Assembly, the Clerk of Bills, the Clerk of Committees, the Editor of Debates, the Keeper of the House and the research and library services, as well as having responsibility for the key issue of flags and whether or not they are flown over parliament buildings at Stormont. It is simply not possible that a Minister in the Irish Republic could be a member of the commission of the Northern Ireland Assembly. It would bring discredit to the whole system and would make a laughing-stock of the Belfast agreement.
  Recruitment of staff is possibly one of the key points. The noble Lord, Lord Rogan, pointed to the Assembly Examiner of Statutory Rules. Candidates for the post are required to have experience of, and specialisation in, the preparation and interpretation of legislation. The Irish Republic has a written constitution; the preparation and interpretation of legislation in the Republic is completely different from that in the United Kingdom, where there is no such written constitution. It is, therefore, wholly inappropriate that an Irish Minister should be a
  1340
  member of the Assembly Commission, which is responsible for appointments to such sensitive posts as Examiner of Statutory Bills. I support the amendment.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: These amendments seek to include the post of presiding officer, deputy presiding officer and members of the Assembly Commission among posts that may not be held by an Irish Minister, or, as proposed in other amendments, even a Member of the Irish legislature. Amendment No. 16 and the second part of Amendment No. 17 propose that someone cannot be a Member of the Irish Government and also a chairman or deputy chairman of a statutory or an ad hoc committee of the Northern Ireland Assembly.
  As to the second group of amendments dealing with chairmen and deputy chairmen of statutory committees, the Government are broadly of the same mind as those proposing the amendments. There are later amendments on the Marshalled List that would have that effect.
  The area where there is a difference of view between us relates to ad hoc committees in the Northern Ireland Assembly, as opposed to statutory committees. The Government's view is that there should not be a prohibition in relation to ad hoc committees because, unlike statutory committees, they have no role to play in the development of policy and no power to initiate legislation. Therefore, the appropriate level to include in the provision is chairman and deputy chairman of statutory committees.
  As far as concerns the position of presiding officer and deputy presiding officer, they have no role either in policy development or in relation to the initiation of policy. So, again, we do not believe that any conflict of interest would arise in that respect. As to the Northern Ireland Assembly Commission, I can tell the Committee that the commission is a body corporate and no commissioner has individual powers. Assembly commissioners are appointed in accordance with Assembly standing orders and the Assembly has power to determine this and to direct the commission. However, a powerful case was made in relation to Assembly commissioners. Therefore, although we stand by our position in relation to presiding officer and deputy presiding officer, perhaps I may take away the points made about the Assembly commissioners and consider them. In the light of my response, I respectfully ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
  10 p.m.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: One must, of course, be grateful for small mercies. Since we tabled these amendments, I am grateful for the fact that the Government have tabled their own amendments, which, as the noble and learned Lord said, partially take the point. However, as he also made clear, they do not wholly take the point, especially as regards the presiding officer, the deputy presiding officer and the commission. I am sorry about that. But, nevertheless, we should be grateful for small mercies. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

  1341
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 not moved.]
  Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 18:
  Clause 2, page 1, line 16, leave out ("a Minister of the Government of Ireland") and insert ("the holder of a disqualifying office").
  The noble Lord said: Noble Lords have been waiting for these amendments all evening; indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, referred to them a long while ago. These amendments come with another group of amendments that have been tabled in order to debate the whole issue. Government Amendments Nos. 18, 25, 30, 40 and 43 recognise that parliamentary and statutory committees of the Assembly all have the power to initiate legislation and, hence, have a role in policy development—a critical distinction. As currently drafted, the Bill prevents Irish Ministers from holding ministerial office in Northern Ireland because of the potential conflict of interest that that would involve.
  The same potential for a conflict of interest would exist if an Irish Minister were to be appointed as the chairman or deputy chairman of a statutory committee of the Assembly, or the chairman or deputy chairman of the Irish Parliament were to be appointed as a Northern Ireland Minister or as the chairman or deputy chairman of a statutory committee of the Assembly. It is, therefore, appropriate to extend the Bill, as provided in these amendments. I commend them to the Committee.
  Amendments Nos. 23 and 29 are, I believe, covered by the government amendments already tabled, with the exception that we do not believe it necessary to include ad hoc committees, which, as I believe my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer observed earlier, have no statutory role in the development of policy. Hence they have no power to initiate legislation. Again, therefore, the conflict of interest that we are seeking to prevent will not arise when a person holds office as an Irish Minister, or as chairman or deputy chairman of an Irish parliamentary committee; and, indeed, as chairman of an ad hoc committee.
  Amendments Nos. 19 and 25A ask the Committee to extend the scope of Clause 2 to include a reference to a "Junior Minister" of the Government of Ireland, in addition to the existing reference to a,
  "Minister of the Government of Ireland".
  Again, we believe this to be unnecessary, as the term "Junior Minister" is not used by the Irish Government. We consider that it is superfluous for that reason. As such, the reference to,
  "Minister of the Government of Ireland",
  adequately covers Irish junior Ministers. Clause 2 refers explicitly to junior Ministers in Northern Ireland because the Northern Ireland Act 1998 provides for different methods of appointment for Northern Ireland Ministers and we consequently
  1342
  believe it necessary and right to refer to Northern Ireland junior Ministers explicitly to ensure that they are covered by the Bill.
  Amendments Nos. 20, 22, 26, 28 and, I believe, 44 seek to extend the scope of Clause 2 to disqualify any Member of the Irish legislature from holding Northern Ireland ministerial office or serving as chairman or deputy chairman of a statutory committee of the Assembly. Amendment No. 44 is a consequential amendment to the Title.
  These amendments go much further than we believe is necessary or required to prevent the conflict of interest that is of concern and, as such, are contrary to the purpose of the Bill which is, as we have explained on many occasions, to place Irish citizens in the same position as Commonwealth citizens in recognition of the close relationship between the United Kingdom and Ireland which has been strengthened—as all in this Chamber have observed—since the coming into effect of the Belfast agreement and the resultant changes to Articles 2 and 3 of the Irish constitution. I beg to move.
  Lord Molyneaux of Killead Lord Molyneaux of Killead: Amendment No. 19 which stands in my name and that of others states:
  "Page 1, line 16, after ('Minister') insert ('or Junior Minister').
  I listened carefully to what the Minister has just said. However, new Section 19A(c) refers, at line 15 of page 1, in a slightly different context to the words,
  "be appointed as a junior Minister".
  It seems logical to read line 15 in conjunction with line 16—the latter line as amended by our amendment—
  "(c) be appointed as a junior Minister.
  if he is a Minister or Junior Minister of the Government of Ireland".
  I think that that format would be tidier and less likely to be misunderstood. I do not believe that it would breach any great policy decision. I do not see how it could be resented by anyone as it constitutes a minor tidying up in so far as it makes one line consistent with the following.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am more than happy to take away that amendment and consider it.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: As I said in connection with the previous amendment, I accept Amendment No. 18 and those that are associated with it as a small but important concession on the Government's part. However, I wonder how it fits in with the choreography of Northern Ireland that we heard about earlier from the Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms. Nevertheless, it is welcome.
  However, as the Minister pointed out, Amendment No. 20 and those that are associated with it attempt to go further. I see no reason why Members of the Dail should be acceptable as Northern Ireland Ministers. I think that that would constitute a terrible conflict of interest. Given the d'Hondt procedure, it is not in

  1343
  anyone's gift to stop it unless we stop it in the legislation. That is the purpose of the amendments I mentioned which go further than the Government's.
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lyell): I hope that it will be for the convenience of the Committee if I apologise. When the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, moved his amendment, I should have advised the Committee that, if Amendment No. 18 were agreed to, I should not be able to call Amendments Nos. 19 to 21. I apologise for that slip.
  Lord Rogan: I wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 19, 20, 25A and 26. All four of these amendments are concerned with which positions within the government of Ireland should be excluded from the listed places in the Northern Ireland Assembly.
  If it is deemed improper for a junior Minister in the Northern Ireland Assembly to become a Minister in the Republic of Ireland's Government, why is that not reciprocated? Why will it be possible for a junior Minister in the Irish Government to be a Minister in the Northern Ireland Assembly? Do members of Sinn Fein only, initially at least, wish to be junior Ministers in the Republic of Ireland's Government?
  These two amendments provide for the situation where one person is a junior Minister in the Government of Ireland and then becomes a Minister in the Northern Ireland Assembly; the order of appointment is reversed. I note that government Amendments Nos. 18, 25 and 30 attempt to rectify the problem a little.
  The problem does not appear to have been given sufficient attention in another place by the Government, even though they had adequate opportunity during what I believe were some 27 hours of debate. However, the issue of junior Ministers has still riot been favourably resolved, as with some other office holders in both assemblies. Therefore, I believe that the most sensible solution is to accept Amendments Nos. 20 and 26. That must be preferable to attempting to draw impossible boundaries, grouping together permissible office holders and excluding others. We do not need to concern ourselves with particular posts in the Irish Government or Parliament if we simply exclude all members of that legislature from holding the listed positions in the Northern Ireland Assembly.
  The reasons why we should exclude all members of the Irish legislature is founded not only on necessary clarity but also on the inevitable conflict of interest which has been much debated already today. The means of determining Northern Ireland's constitutional position is clearly found in the Belfast Agreement—unlike this Bill which is clearly not in the agreement.
  Enabling a person to hold office in Northern Ireland and yet sit in the legislature of the Republic of Ireland is a means of clouding the clarity with which Northern Ireland's constitutional status was stated in the Belfast Agreement. That agreement cannot and should not be
  1344
  cherry picked. This piece of legislation should not be used as a means of renegotiating that agreement on behalf of the republicans.
  I support Amendments Nos. 20 and 26. I urge the Committee to support Amendments Nos. 19 and 25A only as a second preference to the complete exclusion of all members of the Irish legislature from holding the listed offices in the Northern Ireland Assembly.
  We have debated the issue at great length and time moves on. If what I shall say is out of order perhaps noble Lords will tell me. However, in a few clays' time we shall debate the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill. As the Disqualification Bill is drafted, a Minister in the Government of Ireland can be in the Northern Ireland Assembly. By virtue of Schedule 3 to the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill, a member of the Assembly can then sit on the police board. Schedule 3 to that Bill excludes Ministers of the Northern Ireland Assembly from being on the police board. However, by removing disqualification, the Disqualifications Bill permits Ministers of the Irish Government who are also members of the Assembly to be on that police board.
  How will that encourage the population of Northern Ireland to have confidence in the new police board? Can the Minister remind me how well thought out the Disqualifications Bill is?
  Lord Lamont of Lerwick: I welcome government Amendments Nos. 18 and 25, which ensure that Irish Ministers and committee chairmen of the Irish Parliament cannot be Northern Ireland Ministers. Amendment No. 30 provides that Irish Ministers and committee chairmen of the Irish Parliament cannot be Northern Ireland committee chairmen. The Minister has recognised the fact—I welcome it—that committee chairmen are part of the process of policy development. The point was raised in another place but I welcome the fact that this modest concession has been made.
  My Amendments Nos. 22 and 28 would provide that Irish Members of Parliament could not be Northern Ireland Ministers. The Minister said that he did not think that that was a sufficient conflict of interest, although he has given no reasons for his judgment and has made a different judgment for committee chairmen. As my noble friend Lord Cope said from the Front Bench, there could be a serious conflict of interest.
  I have one question for the Minister on which he may need to take advice. This may be inaccurate, but I have read that Members of the European Parliament cannot be Northern Ireland Ministers and that that is why Ian Paisley and John Hume are not part of the Executive, but have left it to their deputy leaders. Perhaps the Minister can tell me whether that is right.
  10.15 p.m.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: I do not think that that sounds right, but I shall take advice and tell the noble Lord.
  Lord Lamont of Lerwick: It would he helpful if we could have advice now. I am grateful to the Minister

  1345
  for intervening, but if what I have said is right, it casts his rejection of the amendment in an odd light. I do not understand why he should reject the suggestion that Irish MPs should not be Northern Ireland Ministers if Members of the European Parliament cannot be members of the Executive. I beg the Minister's forgiveness for asking the question, but I have read of that provision. I know that the Liberals will accuse me of filibustering. I certainly cannot accuse them of filibustering as they sit there without saying a word in this very important debate. No accusation so inglorious as filibustering can be levelled against them. They do not seem to worry in slightest about this constitutional outrage. I hope that the Minister will be able to enlighten me on my question.
  Viscount Cranborne: The amendments are of considerable interest. We are grateful to the Government for the concessions that they have made, but I hope that the Committee will reflect on the extraordinary situation that we are contemplating as though it were an everyday matter. Not only are we debating the possibility of Members of another sovereign Parliament becoming Ministers in a devolved administration of the United Kingdom, but we have to make it explicit that Ministers in another sovereign state should not have executive power in a devolved assembly that forms part of the United Kingdom. If we replaced the word "Irish" with the word "French", the absurdity of the debate would become immediately apparent. As the Minister has often said that the Bill tidies up an anomaly relating to provisions for Commonwealth countries, I might add that the same would apply to substituting the words "Indian", "Australian" or "South African".
  Either we are a sovereign nation or we are not. If the Government do not believe in the future of the nation state, they should say so. If they do, they have no business introducing the Bill. I am grateful for small mercies, but it remains entirely logical that an elected Member of a foreign Parliament should not have even a remote possibility of becoming a member of the executive of a devolved government in the United Kingdom. That makes no sense, even when contemplating matters Irish. One finds one's suspicions entirely confirmed about what the effects of the legislation will be when the Government temporise on matters of this kind.
  Baroness Park of Monmouth: I am concerned about the perception of this proposal in Northern Ireland. In the context of new Articles 2 and 3:
  "It is the entitlement and birthright of every person born in the island of Ireland, which includes its islands and seas, to be part of the Irish nation. That is also the entitlement of all persons otherwise qualified in accordance with law to be citizens of Ireland. Furthermore, the Irish nation cherishes its special affinity with people of Irish ancestry living abroad who share its cultural identity and heritage".
  Article 3 states:
  "It is the firm will of the Irish nation, in harmony and friendship, to unite all the people who share the territory of the island of Ireland, in all the diversity of their identities".
  1346
  It then properly goes on:
  "recognising that a united Ireland shall be brought about only by peaceful means with the consent of a majority of the people".—[Official Report, Commons, 26/1/00; col. 349].
  That sounds fine. However, I am concerned that we are enabling the introduction of Trojan horses. That is how it will be perceived by people in Northern Ireland. The North/South arrangements are already in place and there are plenty of opportunities—for example, through the Council of the Isles and a hundred other organisations—for a coming together of the two parts of the country, if one views Ireland as one island and not one nation. There are plenty of opportunities perhaps for an eventual change by a majority of the people. However, what is being proposed now goes way ahead of that. It introduces Trojan horses. I believe that that is something that we should identify and resist.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am grateful for the kind words of support for the government amendment. I have not been overly convinced by the points that have been made to advance the other amendments. I shall run through some of the issues to which they advert.
  The noble Lord, Lord Rogan, referred to Amendments Nos. 19 and 25A. We hold to the point that the argument that he advanced puts forward a cause that does not need to be supported. As I believe I said at the outset, the existing reference to a "Minister" of the Government of Ireland is sufficient to cover any junior Minister in that government. Furthermore, as is widely understood, the term "Junior Minister" is not used in the Irish Government. Therefore, the two amendments would not have any impact or relevance. They do not work in the context of this Bill and they achieve no effect.
  The noble Lord, Lord Cope, posed a question in relation to preventing Dail Members becoming Ministers in Northern Ireland. He said that he believed that to go too far. We do not believe that being a Member of the Irish legislature or a Northern Ireland Minister creates the conflict of interest that the noble Lord envisages. We believe that that occurs only in respect of ministerial office or in relation to the chairman and deputy chairman posts set out in the government amendment. Therefore, we do not view that matter in the same way as does the noble Lord.
  The noble Lord, Lord Rogan, asked a specific question about membership of the police board. Although he anticipates that—
  Lord Lamont of Lerwick: Will the noble Lord explain why he believes that? As we know, a Minister must make decisions. The noble Lord considers that a Minister might be subject to undue influence or undue pressure because he is a southern Ireland Minister. However, if it is only a question of voting, why are the considerations different? A person may vote subject to influences similar to those which influence a Minister. What is the distinction?
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: I understand the point which the noble Lord is making.
  Noble Lords: Then answer it.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: It is a difficult question to answer. The noble Lord makes a point. I personally believe that there is no conflict. The noble Lord takes a different view. We must agree to differ on that point.
  Lord Lamont of Lerwick: That really is not an answer. If a Minister is influenced because he is a member of parliament in southern Ireland, why would a member of both parliaments not be equally influenced? They are both likely to be influenced by the same pressures. There is no reason for saying one is influenced and one is not.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: Ministers are in a different position because they are much more involved in the day-to-day formulating, and giving executive action to policy. Members are different because they are not involved in that. The similarity is, of course, that they are all involved in making decisions.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: Before the noble Lord leaves that point, it is my recollection, from having been a Member of another place, that there are a number of Members at any given time who would like to be Ministers but have not yet been appointed. Some never are, quite properly. Nevertheless, they are more prepared to agree with the government than their independent judgment might suggest was wise from time to time. There are other considerations too which bear on the behaviour of individual Members of Parliament. I speak as a former Whip.
  In those circumstances, one cannot so easily dismiss this matter by saying that ordinary Members of Parliament are not subject to pressure from their fellows, including Ministers and Whips in their own government. They are. If the Minister is suggesting that only Ministers make important decisions, that is extremely demeaning for Parliament. I realise that Parliament has suffered a lot of difficulties in the past few years and this is another one.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: Ministers are in a different position and for that reason we have moved to prevent that possibility. A Minister in two different parliaments clearly could give rise to conflicts of interest caused by collective responsibility but there is not quite the same degree of conflict if one is a member in one and a Minister in the other. I believe that Members of the Committee will accept that that is a fair and reasonable point to make.
  Baroness Blatch: No, we do not.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: The noble Baroness makes an observation in a sedentary position but she has not joined in the debate.
  1348
  Perhaps I may complete my explanation to the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, in relation to membership of the police board. The police Bill envisages that the political members of the police board will be appointed in proportion, depending on the strength of seats held by the Northern Ireland parties in the Assembly. The strength of that will be unaffected by dual membership and will depend very much on the Assembly elections.
  The noble Lord, Lord Lamont, asked whether Members of the European Parliament can be Ministers in Northern Ireland. European rules prevent that. It is not UK law. It is something which exists within the rules of the European Parliament. That applies to all EU countries.
  Lord Laird: Perhaps I may clarify the noble Lord's answer to my noble friend Lord Rogan. Is the Minister confirming that it is possible to be a Minister in the southern Irish Government and to be a member of the police board?
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: Yes, that is right. I am confirming that possibility. I believe that that answers the various points which Members of the Committee raised during the course of the debate. I commend the amendment to the Committee.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendments Nos. 19 and 20 not moved.]
  10.30 p.m.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 21:
  Clause 2, page 1, line 16, at end insert ("or of a Commonwealth country").
  The noble Lord said: I shall be brief. This amendment relates to another anomaly which, as the Bill stands, is not being corrected. The amendment provides that Commonwealth Ministers should not be Northern Ireland Ministers. We have already discussed the prospect of southern Irish Ministers not being Northern Ireland Ministers and have agreed about that.
  We have been presented with the theoretical possibility, all day, that members of Commonwealth legislatures might start coming into the House of Commons. That particular charade of the Government's has already been exposed as being extremely threadbare. So far as one can detect, there have been no examples in history of anybody from a Commonwealth legislature being a Member of the House of Commons. Nobody has been able to find an example of that. All the amendment does is to expose that charade a little more. I beg to move.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: I suppose that we all have to repeat ourselves during the course of debate. However, the noble Lord is being entirely consistent with his earlier amendments. He will appreciate that the Government's argument for rejecting the amendment is the same as for any of our amendments. They go much further than we believe is necessary to prevent a conflict of interest arising. As such they are contrary to the purpose of the Bill, which, as the noble

  1349
  and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, and I have said before, is to place Irish citizens in the same position as Commonwealth citizens in recognition of the very close relationship between the United Kingdom and Irish Governments and which, as has been recognised since the Belfast agreement, has brought about many welcome changes. On that basis, we cannot be entirely consistent and accept the noble Lord's amendment.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: The whole point of the amendment is that, as the Bill stands, the position in respect of the Commonwealth and Ireland is not the same. This is a small point where it is simply not the same. It is no good saying that it is consistent. The Government have been saying all day that we should make the position in respect of Ireland the same as for the Commonwealth, despite the fact that that is not a sensible comparison. Now, when I seek to place Ireland in the same position as the Commonwealth in this respect, they say, "We do not want to be consistent in this respect because we think it is useless and pointless and will never apply". That drives home my point that the analogy with the Commonwealth, which was the foundation of the noble and learned Lord's speech at Second Reading, is rubbish. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 22 to 24 not moved.]
  Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 25:
  Clause 2, page 1, line 17, leave out ("office on becoming a Minister of the Government of Ireland") and insert ("that office on becoming the holder of a disqualifying office.
  ( ) In this section "disqualifying office" means—

  (a) Minister of the Government of Ireland; or

  (b) chairman or deputy chairman of—

  (i) a committee of the Dáil ireann (House of Representatives of Ireland);

  (ii) a committee of the Seanad ireann (Senate of Ireland); or

  (iii) a joint committee of the Oireachtas (National Parliament of Ireland).").

  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendments Nos. 25A to 29 not moved.]
  Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 30:
  After Clause 2, insert the following new clause—
  (". In section 29(5) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 (which requires standing orders of the Assembly to make certain provision with respect to statutory committees), after "committee;" in paragraph (a) insert—
  "(aa) a member of the Assembly who is a Minister of the Government of Ireland or the chairman or deputy chairman of—

  (i) a committee of the Dáil ireann (House of Representatives of Ireland),

  (ii) a committee of the Seanad ireann (Senate of Ireland), or

  1350

  (iii) a joint committee of the Oireachtas (National Parliament of Ireland),

  may not be the chairman or deputy chairman of a statutory committee;".").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 31:
  After Clause 2, insert the following new clause—
  (". No person may be a Minister of the Crown, or Leader or other paid officer of the Oposition, if he is a Minister or Junior Minister of the Government of Ireland.").
  The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 31 is exactly the same in substance as Amendment No. 13, tabled by the Liberal Democrats and discussed earlier. As we saw, they evidently changed their mind since consideration in another place and so there is no point in pursuing it at this hour. Amendment No. 32 is virtually the same as Amendment No. 12, which we have also already discussed. I beg to move.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: As the noble Lord is not pursuing the amendment at this stage, I shall not respond.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 32 and 33 not moved.]
  Lord Laird Lord Laird had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 33A:
  After Clause 2, insert the following new clause—

  MEMBERSHIP OF NORTHERN IRELAND ASSEMBLY COMMISSION
  (". After section 10 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 there shall be inserted—
  "(11) No person may be a member of the Northern Ireland Assembly Commission if he is a Minister of the Government or a member of the legislature of Ireland."").
  The noble Lord said: In view of what the Minister said, which was reasonably favourable, I shall not move the amendment.
  [Amendment No. 33A not moved.]
  Clause 3 agreed to.
  [Amendments Nos. 34 and 35 not moved.]
  Lord Laird Lord Laird had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 35A:
  After Clause 3, insert the following new clause—

  RESTRICTIONS ON CONFIRMATION OR APPROVAL OF SUBORDINATE LEGISLATION
  (".—(1) A person who is a Minister of the Government of Ireland, or of a Commonwealth country, has no power to make, confirm or approve any subordinate legislation, or to do any act so far as the legislation or act, which—

  (a) is incompatible with any of the Convention rights;

  (b) is incompatible with Community law;

  (c) discriminates against a person or class of person on the ground of religious belief or political opinion;

  (d) in the case of an act, aids or incites another person to discriminate against a person or class of person on that ground; or

  1351

  (e) in the ease of legislation, modifies an enactment in breach of section 7 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998.

  (2) "the Convention rights" has the same meaning as in the Human Rights Act 1998.").
  Baroness Jay of Paddington: I apologise to the Committee, I have only recently been following the procedures on this Bill with the noble Lord, Lord Laird. I have advised the noble Lord that I am, in turn, advised by the authorities that Amendment No. 35A is irrelevant to the subject matter of the Bill. I did forewarn the noble Lord that I would say this and the House authorities also so warned him.
  I can only repeat, as I am sure is familiar to the Committee, that the Companion to the Standing Orders states that amendments must be relevant to the subject matter of the Bill. It makes it clear further that the advice of the Clerks should be taken in relation to matters such as these. The Clerks in the Public Bill Office advised me, and I believe advised the noble Lord, Lord Laird, that, as this Bill is confined to matters relating to disqualification from membership of the House of Commons and the Northern Ireland Assembly and the holding of certain offices, but this amendment seeks to act on participation in certain kinds of Assembly business—namely, to prevent a Minister of the government of Ireland or of a Commonwealth country confirming or approving subordinate legislation—it follows that the amendment is not relevant to the Bill.
  As Members of the Committee will be aware, our procedures in the House are governed by the House as a whole and not by any one individual, and as a consequence the House has a collective responsibility to ensure that our procedures are followed. I intervene at this time for that purpose. With that in mind, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Laird, to accept the advice the Clerks offered to him and to me, and not to move Amendment No. 35A.
  Lord Laird: I thank the noble Baroness for her remarks and everybody involved in this matter. I accept the advice which has been supplied to me and I shall not move the amendment. The purpose in tabling new Clause 4 was to make the point that there is a very high standard to which Ministers in the Northern Ireland Assembly operate. At present, Northern Ireland Ministers and departments are strictly forbidden by the Northern Ireland Act 1998 from doing anything that would infringe human rights arising from the European Convention.
  Through the implementation by the British Government of the Belfast agreement, our own Northern Ireland Ministers have extensive human rights obligations but their Irish counterparts do not. Unlike the United Kingdom, the Irish Republic has not yet incorporated the European Convention on Human Rights into its own domestic law, nor has the Republic of Ireland fulfilled its obligation under the Belfast agreement to ensure that at least an equivalent level of protection of human rights as those which will pertain in Northern Ireland. Under the Belfast agreement, the Irish Government have a duty to
  1352
  establish a human rights commission with the mandate and remit equivalent to that within Northern Ireland. No such commission has yet been created in the Irish Republic. Consequently, a joint committee of representatives of the two human rights commissions has not yet materialised, even though the Belfast agreement was created two-and-a-half years ago.
  We are enormously disappointed by the slow progress made in respect of human rights in the Irish Republic. It is more than two years since the passing of the Belfast agreement, but so far the Republic has totally failed. Consequently, we in Northern Ireland can have no confidence that Irish Ministers sitting in the Northern Ireland Assembly would appreciate the significance that we have in Northern Ireland of upholding fundamental human rights. There must be equality of treatment between Ministers in the Northern Ireland Executive and the Irish Ministers who take their seats.
  I shall be looking at another way of bringing forward an amendment at Report stage. I shall have discussions with the relevant authorities.
  [Amendment No. 35A not moved.]
  Clause 4 [Short title]:
  Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 36:
  Clause 4, page 2, line 1, after ("Disqualifications") insert ("(Ministers and Members of the Legislature of Ireland)").
  The noble Lord said: This amendment seeks to make the citation under which the Bill is to be known, if it is passed, which I hope it is not, that much clearer. It suggests that it should be cited as the
  "Disqualifications … Ministers and Members of the Legislature of Ireland Act 2000".
  Otherwise it will not be clear to anyone who looks at the Bill among others what it is all about. That is the purpose of the citation. It seemed to me that slightly fuller wording was necessary. I beg to move.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: This would have been a consequential amendment required only if amendments relating to Irish Ministers and members of the Irish parliament had been accepted. As no amendments to the Bill referring to Ministers and members of the legislature of Ireland have been accepted, we believe that this amendment is unnecessary. For those reasons, it should be rejected.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: We accepted Amendment No. 25 as regards Ministers and the Government of Ireland not very long ago. The amendment may not be perfect, but it is not quite as bad as the Minister suggests. I shall consider the drafting between now and Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 4 agreed to.
  In the Title:
  [Amendment No. 37 not moved.]
  Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 38:
  In the Title, line 2, after ("Commons") insert (", the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly").
  The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to make the Title more accurate. I beg to move.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: Again, this is a consequential amendment which would have been required if Amendment No. 33 had been accepted. However, as Amendment No. 33 was not accepted there is no good cause to have a reference to the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales. The amendment is both irrelevant and unnecessary and I ask the Committee to reject it.
  Lord Mayhew of Twysden: I invite the noble Lord to say whether he recognises that some of us feel, not altogether light heartedly, that it might be justified to insert into the Title the words "and who has asked for it?". Throughout our proceedings today we have tried, I hope courteously, and, alas, at the expense of inciting the wrath of the noble Lord, Lord Smith, on the Liberal Democrat Benches to discover who has asked for the Bill. We have not succeeded.
  Will the Minister say that between now and the next stage of the Bill, whenever that might be—I hope it will not be the usual period of six months—that the answer, or the refusal to answer, will be reconsidered? It is high time that we were told who has asked for the Bill. Failing that, we should be told why it is considered to be irrelevant, if that be the case.
  During our debate today I have had in mind the couplet from a hymn which I believe was written by the divine John Donne.
  "Who sweeps a room as for Thy laws
  Makes that and th' action fine".
  My noble friend Lord Cranborne tells me that it was written by George Herbert. The Bill is said to be a tidying up operation and today we have been looking at the room which the Government seek to tidy up. No one in living memory has occupied that room; no one sweeps a room which has never been occupied unless they have a good reason for supposing that it will be—and that quite shortly. If so, by whom?
  We want to know in whose name is the room being swept. If the Minister cannot answer tonight—I should have thought that it was a simple question—I hope that he will answer as soon as an opportunity arises at the next stage.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: I had thought that the Minister, or the noble and learned Lord, was going to answer.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: I was simply going to observe that the noble and learned Lord's speech was entertaining and consistent in its persistency, but it did not address the matter before the Committee, which was the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Cope.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: That produced a short if more interesting debate than I had anticipated. It also left unanswered one of the important questions we have asked in different forms all day. That is the question to which we shall continue to seek an answer at later stages. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 39 not moved.]
  Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 40:
  In the Title, line 3, leave out ("and").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendments Nos. 41 and 42 not moved.]
  Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 43:
  In the Title, line 5, at end insert ("or chairmen or deputy chairmen of committees of the Dáil Eireann or the Seanad Eireann or of joint committees of the Oireachtas; and to make provision with respect to who may he chairman or deputy chairman of a statutory committee of the Assembly").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendments Nos. 44 and 45 not moved.]
  Title, as amended, agreed to.
  House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Greenham and Crookham Commons Bill
A message was brought from the Commons, that they have made the following orders to which they desire the concurrence of this House:
That the promoters of the Greenham and Crookham Commons Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with it, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that notice of their intention to do so is lodged in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session and that all fees due up to that date have been paid;
That on the fifth sitting day in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House by deposit in the Private Bill Office;
That a declaration signed by the agent shall be annexed to the Bill, stating that it is the same in every respect as the Bill presented in this House in the present Session;
That on the next sitting day following presentation the Clerk in the Private Bill Office shall lay the Bill on the Table of the House;
That in the next Session the Bill shall be deemed to have passed through every stage through which it has passed in the present Session, and shall be recorded in the Journal of the House as having passed those stages;
That no further fees shall be charged to such stages;
That all petitions relating to the Bill which stand referred to the committee on the Bill, shall stand referred to the committee on the Bill in the next Session;
That no petitioners shall be heard before the committee unless their petition has been presented within the time provided for petitioning or has been deposited pursuant to Private Business Standing Order 126(b);
That, in relation to the Bill, Private Business Standing Order 127 shall have effect as if the words "under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against bill)" were omitted.
House adjourned at nine minutes before eleven o'clock.

  Bingo
  Bingo
  Commission for Racial Equality: Annual Report
  Commission for Racial Equality: Annual Report
  Lieutenant Governors
  Lieutenant Governors
  Home Office: Staff Numbers
  Home Office: Staff Numbers
  Millennium Dome
  Millennium Dome
  Anglo-Irish Secretariat, Maryfield
  Anglo-Irish Secretariat, Maryfield
  British-Irish Intergovernmental Secretariat, Windsor House
  British-Irish Intergovernmental Secretariat, Windsor House
  Northern Ireland: Irish Republic Officials
  Northern Ireland: Irish Republic Officials
  Northern Ireland: Fireworks
  Northern Ireland: Fireworks
  Northern Ireland Ex-prisoners and Victims' Group Funding
  Northern Ireland Ex-prisoners and Victims' Group Funding
  Magistrates' Courts Service: Chief Inspector's Annual Report
  Magistrates' Courts Service: Chief Inspector's Annual Report
  East of England Development Agency: Strategy Revision
  East of England Development Agency: Strategy Revision
  Smoking at Petrol Filling Stations
  Smoking at Petrol Filling Stations
  Agrimonetary Compensation for Arable Farmers
  Agrimonetary Compensation for Arable Farmers
  BSE Cases
  BSE Cases
  Organic Farming Scheme
  Organic Farming Scheme
  Badger Road Casualties: TB Survey
  Badger Road Casualties: TB Survey
  BSE and UK Sheep Flock
  BSE and UK Sheep Flock
  House of Lords Annual Report
  House of Lords Annual Report
  Resuscitation Decision-making
  Resuscitation Decision-making
  Sexual Intercourse: Risk Comparison
  Sexual Intercourse: Risk Comparison
  Diploma in Social Work
  Diploma in Social Work
  Social Care National Vocational Qualifications
  Social Care National Vocational Qualifications
  Flu Vaccination
  Flu Vaccination
  Social Security: Third Way Policy
  Social Security: Third Way Policy
  Child Poverty: Definition
  Child Poverty: Definition
  "Learning from Success" Conferences
  "Learning from Success" Conferences
  Age Diversity in Employment: Code of Practice
  Age Diversity in Employment: Code of Practice
  Examination Performance and Month of Birth
  Examination Performance and Month of Birth
  Departmental Cars
  Departmental Cars