Sitting of 8 November 2000

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS
PRIVATE BILLS [LORDS](SUSPENSION)
Ordered
That so much of the Lords Message [6th November] as relates to the Colchester Borough Council Bill [Lords] be now considered.
Resolved,
That this House concurs with the Lords in their Resolution.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

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

    Peace Process (International Support)
    Gillian Merron: If he will make a statement on the level of international support for developments in the peace process in Northern Ireland. [135594]
    Mr. David Stewart: If he will make a statement on international support for developments in the peace process in Northern Ireland. [135604]
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Mandelson): We have enjoyed worldwide support for our attempts to secure a lasting peace in Northern Ireland. This has been particularly strong from the European Union, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Finland, South Africa and the United States. I hope that the whole House will join me in thanking President Clinton for his unstinting support over the past eight years, and especially for the part that he has played in bringing about, and sustaining, the Good Friday agreement.
    Gillian Merron: While we wait with bated breath for the name of the next President of the United States, does my right hon. Friend share my hope that the next occupant of
    298
    the White House will show the same dedication and commitment that President Clinton has shown over the past eight years in bringing about a successful peace process?
    Mr. Mandelson: I should certainly like to be the first from the Dispatch Box to congratulate the President-Elect—[HON. MEMBERS: "Who is he?"]—whoever he turns out to be. I am sure that the next President will ensure the continuation of America's support for the peace process in Northern Ireland. I should add that, during his electoral campaign, Mr. Bush said that the new Assembly and institutions represented the best hope for peace in Northern Ireland and, during his electoral campaign, Mr. Gore undertook to support, among other things, decommissioning of illegally held paramilitary arms. Both would-be Presidents seem to have a good grasp of all the essentials.
    Mr. Stewart: Does my right hon. Friend acknowledge the recent positive announcements by two American firms—Teletech and Caterpillar—to create 1,400 new jobs in Northern Ireland? Does he share my view that, notwithstanding the political difficulties in Northern Ireland, foreign investors have strong underlying confidence in the long-term prospects for peace?
    Mr. Mandelson: Yes, I strongly echo my hon. Friend's remarks and welcome the investment that has come from those two companies, among others. However, it behoves us all to bear in mind that this strengthening investment performance by Northern Ireland kis come as a result of the peace process strengthening and politics working in Northern Ireland. I believe that continued investment in Northern Ireland depends on continued stability and peace. I hope, and I trust, that all parties in Northern Ireland will be mindful of that in the coming weeks.
    Mr. David Trimble: While endorsing the Secretary of State's comments on President Clinton and his successor, whoever that might be, can I urge him to make the strongest possible representations to the present and future incumbents of the White House on the failure of the State Department to list the so-called Real IRA as a terrorist organisation? In a week in which we have received a police warning that more Omaghs may be committed by that organisation, can he say to the American Administration that people throughout the British isles cannot understand why the State Department is not classifying that organisation in the way that it should?
    Mr. Mandelson: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising that issue. We need constantly to bear down on the Real IRA and other dissident paramilitary groups, by all available means. When I was in the United States in September, I expressed the hope that the United States authorities would add the Real IRA to their list of designated terrorist organisations. I believe that that would frustrate the funding that the group receives from America and, crucially, assist us in carrying out any necessary prosecutions of that organisation in the United States. I am continuing to discuss that issue with my Irish opposite numbers because, clearly, the prospects

    299
    of securing that outcome will be much enhanced if the British and Irish Governments act together in making a joint submission.
    Mr. Lembit Öpik: Does the Secretary of State agree that there will be international support for the decision by representatives of the Ulster Defence Association to come here—officially—for the first time yesterday, to try and establish political links between themselves and this Parliament? Does he also agree that, if that is a serious step forward in trying to create a peaceful dialogue between loyalist paramilitaries and our Parliament, there is a good chance that we will replicate the good news that we had when the IRA did something very similar a few years ago?
    Mr. Mandelson: I think that it is important to encourage dialogue among and between all the parties, especially at a time when reserves of confidence and good will in Northern Ireland are dangerously low. In the coming weeks, I shall discuss with the parties a set of measures to implement all aspects of the Good Friday agreement, so as to bolster confidence on both sides of the community. Those measures must include, among other things, progress on decommissioning and fully functioning political institutions. Both are essential and neither should be frustrated by the hardliners found on both sides. The Government will never give up on the Good Friday agreement and nor should anyone else who has Northern Ireland's best interests at heart.
    Mr. John M. Taylor: In the context not least of international support, will the Secretary of State confirm that he has every sympathy for the Omagh victims? In the absence so far of criminal charges, does he agree that attempts to pursue a civil action against the suspects deserve the fullest support?
    Mr. Mandelson: One only has to visit Omagh, as I did again last week, to feel the hurt surrounding the absence of a conviction; it is a hurt that is felt by all the victims' families and by the wider community in Omagh. That is why, as I said in Omagh, I fully understand the motives behind the campaign. We need to continue to exert maximum pressure on those who want to destroy the peace process. I also want to place on record my admiration for the investigation team in Omagh: I know how hard its members have worked and how desperate they are to find that last piece of evidence that they can put in place to secure the conviction of those who carried out that disgusting atrocity.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Before I call the next question, I ask for quiet in the Chamber.

    Royal Ulster Constabulary
    Mr. John Wilkinson: What discussions he has had since the end of July with the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary about recruitment and retention of personnel for the RUC. [135595]
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office Mr. Adam Ingram: There have been numerous and regular meetings with the Chief Constable or his representatives at ministerial and official level on recruitment and retention of RUC personnel and other subjects since July.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Does the Minister not believe that the record of the RUC in standing between the law-abiding people of Northern Ireland and the spectres of anarchy and bloody civil war, under the proud name and cap badge of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, is one that inspires citizens who are committed to the maintenance of law and order to join the force, and those who have served so well to stay in it; but that, if the force became subject to local partnerships or a policing board that contained released terrorists and apologists for those who maintain dumps of illegal arms, that confidence would be gravely undermined?
    Mr. Ingram: Again, I place on record the Government's fulsome tribute to the RUC, which has been recognised in many different ways, not least by Her Majesty awarding the force the George Cross. Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced a substantial package for RUC widows and disabled officers, which will go some way towards dealing with difficult issues, including the deep pain felt within the organisation for many years.
    As for district partnerships, they were included in the Patten report as a means of ensuring that policing would, as far as possible, be based in the local community. The hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) is probably wholly opposed to that report, but we are confident that its provisions, once they have been given full effect through the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill, will be warmly received within the wider community in Northern Ireland.
    Dr. Norman A. Godman: May I point out that cap badges have been altered elsewhere with no loss of morale; and that sensible people now accept reform of the police force? Does my right hon. Friend believe that the interim target of 30.5 per cent. Catholic representation in the police force by March 2004 is an attainable objective, given that many Jeremiahs, especially those on the other side of the House, believe that it is not a realistic goal?
    Mr. Ingram: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments. Everyone who has read the Patten report will know how difficult it is for police services throughout the world to change in terms of representation. The Patten report cites the New York experience. With the provisions that we have set out in the Bill, we have sought to ensure that there is equitable representation. I think that that is an achievable target.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: With reference to the Minister's mention of compensation for RUC widows, I welcome the move that has been made. However, there is great concern among these widows that even what is on offer is far different from what later widows have received thorough the courts. Would it not be better to have an equitable settlement so that there is no distinction between

    301
    these widows? Some of them received compensation of only a few hundred pounds after years of suffering before the Government made a decision.
    Mr. Ingram: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has had the opportunity of reading John Steele's review, which is a comprehensive analysis of what is undoubtedly a difficult problem. The Government have supported his conclusions. We believe that we are dealing equitably with the issue. We recognise the pain and the hurt that exists for RUC widows who pre-date the 25 November 1982 change in legislation. I am sure that those widows will benefit greatly from the Government's response.
    Mr. John McFall: Does the Minister agree that the population want every street in Northern Ireland to be policed? To achieve that community police force, we must recognise that the Patten report is a cornerstone of the Good Friday agreement, as agreed by the political parties in Northern Ireland. Like me, does my right hon. Friend deprecate some political parties that are trying to make a political issue out of policing?
    Mr. Ingram: The Patten report was based on the premise of trying to take politics out of policing. It was a detailed analysis of the issue raised by my hon. Friend and of other issues. As we move forward from the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill to the Act, and then to implementation of the various elements of the legislation, it will take time for all the changes to bed down. The driving force is our wish to achieve a police service that is acceptable at all levels of Northern Ireland society. It is a big objective, but I think that it can be reached.
    Mr. William Thompson: Does the Minister accept that, as a result of the Government's policies, the morale of the Royal Ulster Constabulary is at an all-time low and absenteeism, sickness levels, disillusionment and disenchantment are at an all-time high? What will the right hon. Gentleman do to address these disastrous policies?
    Mr. Ingram: Any programme of change brings with it difficult issues with which we must deal. The Chief Constable carried out a fundamental review of the RUC. It has been judged that about 85 per cent. of its contents are set out in the Bill. Had that review been implemented, we would have had to deal with the same difficulties of change. Clearly, change brings forward difficulties. With the Bill, we are trying to take away uncertainty and to move forward into a different type of society in Northern Ireland—that is, a more normal civic society. Changes within the police service are a concomitant part of that.
    Mr. Stephen Pound: It would be excessively obsequious of me to suggest that where my right hon. Friend leads, the nation follows. However, does he agree that many of the proposed changes for policing in Northern Ireland have the potential to provide a blueprint for even better policing in the rest of the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Ingram: I agree entirely with those sentiments. We are saying that the way in which we have sought to interpret the Patten report takes best practices from
    302
    international experience of what should constitute an effective, efficient and acceptable police service. I have no doubt that, as we move forward and implement the measures set out in the Bill, internationally people will take positive note of the changes that are taking place in Northern Ireland and draw positive responses from them.
    Mr. Robert McCartney: On the issue of morale, does the Minister agree that one of the most deleterious effects of Patten and, indeed, of the Belfast agreement has been for the RUC to see those whom it risked life and limb to put behind bars let loose on the street? Does he agree that the presence yesterday of Michael Stone, a murderous terrorist, in the precincts of the House has done nothing to give confidence either to the police or to law-abiding citizens in both communities in Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Ingram: The hon. and learned Gentleman is an implacable opponent of the Good Friday agreement. I do not know what change he wishes to see in Northern Ireland that he could encourage others to find acceptable as we try to deal with that matter in a structured way, building from the ground up. On the question of released prisoners, we have made it clear—I will make it clear again—that, if any of them break their licences, they will be back in prison. We say that time and again. The Secretary of State has shown his willingness to act firmly.
    Mr. Kevin McNamara: Does my right hon. Friend recall that, during the previous Administration, prisoners were released even when the ceasefire had broken down? Does he agree that what we are seeking to do, when men such as Mr. Stone visit the precincts of the House, is to demonstrate that democracy is a better way than violence, and that there are opportunities for people to enter into dialogue and for there to be inclusive solutions to the problems, recognising the differences in traditions and in attitudes, but accepting democratic methods?
    Mr. Ingram: Again, I agree with those sentiments. My hon. Friend presents his arguments more eloquently than I could. He makes a valid point. Democratic dialogue is better than destruction through the barrel of a gun. That is what we seek to do as we move towards a more normalised and a more civic society in Northern Ireland. If people are engaged—no matter what their past is—in that democratic dialogue, we should welcome them into the fold of democratic change in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Andrew MacKay: Does the Minister accept that the proposed abolition of the name of the Royal Ulster Constabulary is causing huge hurt among the families of officers who have been murdered or mutilated in fighting terrorism during the recent troubles, and that that can hardly help him to retain and to recruit new officers?
    Mr. Ingram: We have recognised the hurt. We understand the deep angst within the RUC family and the community, too, but what part of the Good Friday agreement does the right hon. Gentleman now support? The Patten Commission—the need to look at the whole question of policing in Northern Ireland—was an important element of the agreement. If he is now saying

    303
    that he does not support that aspect, and he does not support the release of prisoners, what does he support in the agreement? Perhaps he could help me to understand the direction that he is now coming from.
    Mr. MacKay: If the right hon. Gentleman really accepts the sensitivities of the families, surely he will agree with us that, at this late stage in the Session, the Government should accept our amendments—which might be voted on in another place today—to have a joint name for the police force that incorporates both the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Northern Ireland police force and which, therefore, takes into account the genuine sensitivities in both communities in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Ingram: The right hon. Gentleman is offering a recipe for uncertainty, confusion and continued division. That issue has been debated in the House. I, as the Minister responsible, and the Secretary of State have set out why we believe there should be a very clear approach. t is why we say that the name will be the Police Service for Northern Ireland.
    I ask the right hon. Gentleman again to reflect on what parts of the Good Friday agreement he now supports. He has rejected most of the key elements that the Government must bravely take forward. I would have hoped that he could understand the need for bipartisanship on those difficult issues.

    Petrol Prices
    Mr. Eric Forth: What discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer about petrol prices in Northern Ireland. [135601]
    Mr. Peter Viggers: What discussions he has held with the Chancellor of the Exchequer about petrol prices in Northern Ireland. [135606]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. George Howarth): As the right hon. Gentleman is well aware, discussions between the Chancellor and Ministers on such matters are, for obvious reasons, confidential. However, if the right hon. Gentleman exercises a little patience, he may hear more on the subject later from my right hon. Friend the Chancellor.
    Mr. Forth: I am grateful to the Minister. Can he tell us whether, during those discussions, any estimate has been made by his Department or by the Treasury of the loss in revenue to the Treasury as a result of cross-border smuggling of fuel for vehicles?
    Mr. Howarth: As the right hon. Gentleman probably knows, there was a Select Committee report containing some estimates. There is indeed a problem, which it would be wrong not to acknowledge. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State, who is responsible for security, is working hard with the RUC and other agencies to make sure that the smuggling of petrol or other products is dealt
    304
    with robustly and properly. The right hon. Gentleman has identified a problem which we recognise needs attention, and it is receiving serious attention.
    Mr. Speaker: I call Mr. Viggers. He is not here.
    Mr. John Hume: Does the Minister agree that the region that is suffering most from the petrol crisis is Northern Ireland, particularly the border counties, because of the enormous difference in price on each side of the border—85p a litre on our side and 60p a litre on the other? That is an incredible threat to the petrol industry on our side of the border, and also to the shopping centres as a result of the enormous change that has taken place because of that. Will the Government take the necessary steps to resolve the issue as soon as possible?
    Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman, as a distinguished Member of the European Parliament, knows that any scheme to reduce duty rates in Northern Ireland or to introduce a price subsidy scheme would require the co-operation of the Commission. Any such scheme would run into difficulties, as has been the case in other countries. Although there is a problem, which the hon. Gentleman identifies, any solution has equal difficulties attached to it.
    Mr. William Ross: Given that the number of vehicles is up and the consumption of all sorts of fuel in Northern Ireland is down, is the Minister prepared to deny the estimate by some people in Northern Ireland that there has been a loss of up to £1 billion to the revenue of the United Kingdom? If he does deny that, why? Will he then produce his own estimates, as the Treasury has clearly been unable to do so?
    Mr. Howarth: I acknowledged earlier that there is a problem. For the reasons mentioned by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), the problem has a particular impact on Northern Ireland. Speculating on the amounts involved—a Select Committee figure was mentioned—does not tell us what the solution is. We must work towards a solution that will work and will receive the co-operation of the RUC and all the other agencies, and bring it to bear on the problem. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman and the House agree that that is the sensible way forward.

    Victim Support Programmes
    Mr. Phil Hope: If he will make a statement about Government programmes for the support of victims. [135602]
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Ingram): The Government provide funding to Victim Support (NI), which offers a range of services to victims of crime, and to the Nexus Institute, which supports victims of sexual abuse. To date, the Government have also allocated more than £6.25 million to a series of initiatives that address the needs of victims of the troubles. Furthermore, my right hon. Friend the

    305
    Secretary of State announced yesterday a substantial package of support for RUC widows and injured and disabled officers.
    Mr. Hope: Given the years of neglect of the victims of the troubles in Northern Ireland under the previous Administration, will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the Opposition on their new-found concern for victims, and will he comment on progress on the new core funding scheme introduced by the Government to help families in Northern Ireland rebuild their lives?
    Mr. Ingram: That is a blow that the Opposition deserve to have landed on them because there was some sanctimonious posturing in the way in which they dealt with some of the issues. We have had to tackle the deep hurt and grief in that divided community, and we have done so with vigour. I announced earlier the extent of how we are dealing with that. That will not be the end of the problems that we have to solve nor of our commitment to solving them.

  The Prime Minister was asked—
  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Bob Blizzard: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 8 November.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
    Mr. Blizzard: Is not the real problem with fuel prices revealed by looking at the fuel used by fishing boats? There is no duty at all on marine diesel, yet prices have trebled because of the high international price of crude oil. The trawlermen of Lowestoft cannot make a living with such high prices. They understand that the problem is not of the Government's making, but can a way forward be found so that the fishing industry can survive the high prices and the fish for our national dish can still be caught by British fishermen?
    The Prime Minister: It is the rise in world oil prices that has caused most difficulty, but the industry is currently experiencing extensive and difficult restructuring. However, I am pleased to be able to tell my hon. Friend that the fisheries departments of England and the devolved Administrations will make some £60 million available during the next few years to help the fishing industry to adapt to the difficult times in which it now exists.
    Mr. William Hague: For great numbers of people today their main concern is the flooding of their homes, which has caused genuine misery and distress. I know that the Prime Minister will want to join me in expressing sympathy to all those affected in recent days and, once again, profound gratitude for the magnificent response of the emergency services.
    306
    In examining what more can be done in future by any Government, does the Prime Minister agree that all parties should look again at the verdict of the Select Committee on Agriculture that the current responsibilities for tackling flooding may be too fragmented and that there is a lack of clarity as to which body is ultimately in charge?
    The Prime Minister: Of course I join in the thanks to the emergency services, which, as ever, have performed magnificently in extremely difficult circumstances, and of course we will consider the Agriculture Committee's suggestion. I think that the Environment Agency is due to report back on that very issue.
    I am afraid that it looks very much as if (the problem will not go away during the next few years. The floods have been the worst for 50 years and, in some cases, for 100 years. We must put in the short-term measures necessary—flood defences and so on—and then we must take, on an international level, some of the difficult decisions, perhaps ducked for too long, about some of the issues of climate change.
    Mr. Hague: I thank the Prime Minister for that reply. He will know that the independent review team set up after the 1998 floods described
    weaknesses in the planning and delivery of flood defence and warning policies—[Interruption.]
    Hon. Members may not think this is important, but to thousands of people in north Yorkshire who have had to leave their homes it is very important, despite everything else that is happening in the world today.
    The independent review team also said that, under successive Administrations, the Environment Agency
    did not achieve its own performance targets.
    In the light of that, would it not be sensible, across parties, to review the powers and effectiveness of the Environment Agency in dealing with flood planning and warnings?
    The Prime Minister: It was precisely as a result of the lessons learned in 1998 that the new emergency warning system was introduced; and that worked well in this instance. We have also spent more money on flood defences than ever before—up by about 50 per cent. during the past 10 years or so. Of course, we shall consider what else we can do, and we are prepared to consider any suggestions.
    I am glad, too, that the right hon. Gentleman sees that this is a matter for cross-party co-operation. Everyone wants to ensure that we have the proper flood defences in place. For those people affected at the moment, the situation is desperate, and we must do everything possible to help them. However, we must look not merely at the short—term measures that are necessary to protect Britain against floods, but, at an international level, at what we can do to try to reduce the incidence of such freak climate changes that are happening not just in Britain but throughout Europe and the rest of the world.
    Mr. Clive Efford: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the road has not been built that can accommodate all the bandwagons on which the Leader of the Opposition has jumped recently? My constituents have approached me to say that the self-appointed leaders of the road fuel lobby do not represent their views on

    307
    investment in public services, or the need to improve education, to tackle the environment and improve the quality of the air that they are forced to breathe. If those self-appointed leaders are intent on mocking the memory of the Jarrow hunger marchers, perhaps my right hon. Friend would like to pull them over to the side of the motorway and keep them there until they feel the pangs of hunger in their bellies, and know what it is to struggle. Perhaps they will then go home and respect the need to run the country by law and democracy.
    The Prime Minister: Whatever people's grievances about the cost of fuel, I hope that we can agree on two matters. First, those grievances should be pursued lawfully and properly, without trying to disrupt the country's food supplies or bring the motorways or any other aspect of the country to a halt. Secondly, anything that we do to try to address those grievances cannot be at the expense of economic stability, investment in our public services or any other action that we want to take for other people who need our help, notably pensioners.
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: To return to flooding, does the Prime Minister believe that an explanation is owed to those whose homes and businesses have been flooded of the fact that, five months ago, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food received a report which stated that there was an urgent case for fresh investment in flood prevention measures? Why has it taken five months and the latest catastrophe before extra funds have been forthcoming?
    The Prime Minister: It has not taken five months, because we have been increasing the amount of money for flood defences. The Deputy Prime Minister tells me that, in some respects, we are putting in more money than the report requested. As a result of the announcements that were made a few days ago, the Bellwin scheme will be paid at 100 per cent. That will provide significant help to people. An extra £51 million has also been announced. Before then, not only as a result of the report but because of circumstances that existed a couple of years ago, we increased investment in flood defences.
    Mr. Kennedy: The House has already welcomed the additional money, but will the Prime Minister confirm two points? First, will he confirm that the additional sums will be spread over the next four years, and that the headline figure does not apply to the current financial year? Secondly, does he acknowledge, in the light of the advice that the Government received five months ago, that if they had acted earlier and with greater alacrity, some of the worst effects could have been avoided?
    The Prime Minister: That is very unfair. It would be unfortunate if the bandwagon tendency had been transferred.
    We have put in the extra money. It will be spread over four years, as the Deputy Prime Minister announced, but there is a limit to what we can do in the short term. We have put in additional sums of money in the past few years. Indeed, it is fair to say that even under the previous Government, additional sums were put in after the floods in the late 1980s. We must continue to make that
    308
    investment. However, even with the best investment and safeguards, there will be an increasing problem unless we also deal with some of the longer-term issues.
    Maria Eagle: Does my right hon. Friend welcome, as I do, the publication of Mr. Justice Colman's report on the reopened inquiry into the sinking of the MV Derbyshire? The report exonerates the master and crew of any blame for the sinking. Will he join me in congratulating the families of the 44 people who died? Those families fought a 20-year campaign to get at the truth of what happened. Will he also join me in congratulating the Deputy Prime Minister, whose determination to reopen the inquiry has been so fully vindicated today?
    The Prime Minister: I am happy to offer my congratulations on the campaign and pay tribute to the families of those who lost their lives. As my hon. Friend said, that campaign stretches over 20 years. We studied the matter very carefully on coming to office and, indeed, before that—my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has had a long-standing commitment to this issue. We established the inquiry and we shall now study the results. I am pleased that, after two decades of trying, we are finally getting closer to the truth of what happened. We are now able to study the results of that report and take appropriate action.
    Mr. Andrew George: The Prime Minister has rightly given power to places that people identify with, but when will he complete that unfinished business? Will he make sure that Assemblies in future reflect regions that people identify with, have a clear popular mandate and are fully democratic?
    The Prime Minister: We have always said that that has to be driven by local people themselves—they have got to want such Assemblies to be established. In the meantime, of course, we have made considerable progress in decentralising government, in particular with the establishment of the regional development agencies. For example, the South West of England regional development agency, as the hon. Gentleman knows, played a key role in securing objective 1 status for Cornwall, which will be worth more than £300 million over the next seven years. Seven thousand five hundred new job opportunities have been created or safeguarded through the RDA and there have been 37 inward investment projects, which have attracted a capital investment of more than £100 million. Those are considerable achievements on which to build for the future.
    Angela Smith: In the context of the national debate on public services, I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the actions of Essex county council. Is he aware that, just like the Tory Opposition in the House, Essex Tories promised to tax less and to deliver more? Yesterday, however, they announced education spending cuts of three quarters of a million pounds, including more than a third of a million from under-fives education. Does that not just go to prove that people who vote Tory are jeopardising their children's education?
    The Prime Minister: I suppose that at least we could accuse the Tories of consistency. What they are doing at

    309
    a local level they are committed to doing at a national level. To anybody who doubted what we were saying about the £16 billion worth of cuts, let me inform the House of what the shadow Chancellor said just a few weeks ago:
    We have committed ourselves at the moment to matching them on health.
    The interviewer asked, "And education?" The reply was:
    No we haven't made that commitment.
    It is perfectly obvious that the investment that has reduced class sizes for five, six and seven-year-olds, the investment in school buildings and the investment that has given us the best test results for 11-year-olds this country has ever seen would all be taken away by the Conservatives, were they returned to power.
    Mr. Michael Jack: The Prime Minister will be aware that, after voting Labour, people in Preston are experiencing the highest council tax in Lancashire. What steps will he take to deal with the situation, at a time when members of his party in Preston are still busy fighting each other about who will speak for Labour in the by-election?
    The Prime Minister: The level of the tax, of course, is a matter for the local council. Let me just say—[Interruption] Well, it is. Let me just point out that, actually, the rises in—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members should quieten down.
    The Prime Minister: Let me just point out to hon. Members that the council tax rises in the last three years of the Government whom they supported were more than double the rate of inflation.
    Mr. Andrew Love: What efforts is my right hon. Friend making to assist homeless families, especially in Greater London, in recognition of how adversely they were affected by Tory Governments and their failed housing policies?
    The Prime Minister: We are taking measures, particularly in relation to the homeless, that have, for example, reduced the number of rough sleepers by a third in the past couple of years. We will also, by 2003, put an extra £1.6 billion worth of investment into housing. The most important thing that we can do for housing is to keep interest rates and mortgages low. Let me remind the House that in the 18 years of Conservative government, interest rates averaged 10 per cent. Under this Government, they have averaged 6 per cent. That is a saving of well over £1,000 a year to the average mortgage payer.
    Mr. William Hague: Will the Prime Minister tell the House what is now the total cost to the public of the millennium dome?
    The Prime Minister: The figures have been set out many times before and there has been £660 million of lottery grant—[Interruption.] Well, because the right hon. Gentleman has been going around the country attacking the funding of the dome, saying what a terrible idea it was
    310
    and that he would never have thought of it, let me refresh his memory about the Cabinet Committee GEN 36, which was established in February 1996 by the then Prime Minister to consider all aspects of the dome, including funding, financial management, who should be appointed, where the dome should be sited and how it was to be designed. I shall read out the membership of that sub-group. It was chaired by the then Deputy Prime Minister, with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and—guess who else?—the right hon. Gentleman, who was then Secretary of State for Wales. I will accept criticism of the dome from members of the public, but not from the right hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Hague: So the Prime Minister does not know how much he has squandered on the dome as a result of his mismanagement and cronyism. If he wants to quote what was said about the dome in the past, we should look at his speech in the royal festival hall, "Why the dome is good for Britain". The Prime Minister said:
    It is costing just £400 million … It will turn in a profit for Britain.
    Last December, the Prime Minister said:
    Like anything new in Britain, the Dome has to see off … those … who are made uneasy by success.
    Since then, because of the Prime Minister's plans—not the plans of any previous Administration—the Prime Minister put in £50 million when the dome started, £60 million in February, £29 million in May, £43 million in August and £47 million in September. Will the Prime Minister tell the country how much in total has now been taken out of the public pocket because of that monument of ministerial mismanagement?
    The Prime Minister: Let me run through what was in that Committee's remit—
    Hon. Members: How much?
    Mr. Speaker:Order. I cannot tolerate hon. Gentlemen shouting, "How much?" The Prime Minister will answer the question in his own way.
    The Prime Minister: The decisions to build the dome and to choose the Greenwich site were taken by that Committee. The appointment of senior managers was decided by it, as was the lottery money and financing that the right hon. Gentleman now complains about. It took the decision to split jobs between two Ministers and, we have discovered, it gave the visitor number projections. The only difference between the robbers who were caught at the dome yesterday and the right hon. Gentleman is the fact that the Tories are never caught at the scene of the crime.
    Hon. Members: More.
    Mr. Hague: It defies credulity—[Horn. MEMBERS: "More."] Oh, there is plenty more. It defies credulity that the Prime Minister now thinks that it is all to do with the previous Administration. There was an attempt to drive a bulldozer into the dome yesterday, but the biggest robbery is the fact that the Government did not drive a bulldozer into it two months ago. Visitor number figures were reviewed by the Deputy Prime Minister and his colleagues and were confirmed. They were not set in place by the

    311
    previous Government. How can the Prime Minister claim that the planning was due to the previous Administration, when he said:
    These plans require a leap of faith …?
    He went on to say that they were
    the most exciting thing happening in the world in the year 2000.
    How can he blame the previous Government, when he said:
    The Dome itself will last for decades to come after the year 2000. It will become an international landmark …?
    How can he blame it on the previous Administration when he said:
    And believe me—
    which always arouses our suspicions—
    it will be the envy of the world …?
    If the National Audit Office report to be published tomorrow seriously criticises the Government and the Ministry for their mishandling of the dome, will the Minister with responsibility for the dome take that responsibility and resign?
    The Prime Minister: Let us see what the report actually says. I should point out to the right hon. Gentleman that the visitor number estimates were first done by his Government and his Committee. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!] Yes, it is true that they were reviewed by us, so let us share a bit of the responsibility. As for his comments about the dome, it is correct that those visitor numbers were out, although more than 5 million people will go to the dome this year; but on the other side of the balance sheet, the total value of the north Greenwich peninsular is liable to be about £1 billion. All that is true. However, I will not accept criticism from the right hon. Gentleman. When I was doing his job, I was visited by the Cabinet Minister then in charge of this project who was chairing the Committee that the right hon. Gentleman was on. He asked us for our support, and told us that if we did not give that support thousands of jobs would be at risk and a great international event would not be staged in this country. I am prepared to accept, and have accepted, criticism from the public, but I am not prepared to accept criticism from the person who sat on that Committee, took those decisions and, now that a little bandwagon has gone out, has decided to motor it off.
    Mr. Hague: The Prime Minister once boasted that the dome would be the first paragraph of the next Labour election manifesto. Had he proposed to start his election manifesto by saying that his party shared this responsibility with the Conservative party? Was that what he had in mind? Now he wants to share the responsibility. Has not the whole saga shown that Ministers cannot be trusted with the public's money? Is it not true that this story of hype, emptiness, cronyism, lack of delivery and rash promises is not the first paragraph of Labour's manifesto but the last word about this Government?
    The Prime Minister: Even though the right hon. Gentleman decided the financing and the management of the dome, he now tells us that it was the wrong thing to do. Two things come out of this exchange. First, he wants to deny the part that he personally played in bringing about the dome. Secondly, his opportunism does not end there. I am amazed that today of all days the right hon.
    312
    Gentleman has not come to the Dispatch Box and asked us about the economy. He has been going round the country telling us that it is in crisis as a result of our mismanagement. Why has he chosen to go on the issue of the dome? Because he knows that when it comes to the economy he has nothing to say.
    Gillian Merron: Has the Prime Minister seen the survey in Saga Magazine, which shows that seven out of 10 people have given a big thumbs down to the Opposition's plans to axe winter fuel payments and free television licences for the over-75s? The survey shows that pensioners want to keep those vital payments as well as have an increase in the basic state pension—a fact that the Tories have singularly failed to grasp.
    The Prime Minister: That is right. The Conservatives would take away the winter fuel allowance of £150 and the free television licences. The thing about both those sums of money that have been given to pensioners is that they are not affected by tax or benefit. It is crucially important that pensioners are allowed to receive those benefits. Once again, the Conservative party shows how it would let down the pensioners of this country.
    I should also say that we will be putting more money into pensions overall in this Parliament than we would have done had we relinked the basic state pensions with earnings. That is because we on this side of the House care about all pensioners, not just a few.
    Sir Teddy Taylor: In view of increasing public concern about the concentration of power in Europe, is it really true that the Prime Minister is planning to surrender the veto in substantial new policy spheres? Would it not be better for Europe and for Britain if we asked the European Union to use its current powers more sensibly, rather than passed over more power from a democratic Parliament to a non-elected body?
    The Prime Minister: No; as I have made very clear, we will not surrender the veto at all on tax and treaty change issues or on a range of other issues. However, there are issues on which we would be prepared to examine qualified majority voting, when it is in our interests to do so.
    Conservative Members now take the position that they will not have any extension of qualified majority voting at all. However, of the two largest extensions of qualified majority voting—far larger than anything that we have either done or proposed to do in government—the first was made by Margaret Thatcher, when she was Prime Minister, in 1986, and the second by my immediate predecessor as Prime Minister, in the Maastricht treaty.
    Mr. William Cash: They got it wrong.
    The Prime Minister: That is not what Conservative Members said at the time.
    At the time, qualified majority voting was important. If we did not have qualified majority voting in relation to some agriculture issues or in respect of completion of the single market, for example, we could not properly protect British business interests. We should therefore judge it on a case-by-case basis. We should keep the veto when it is

    313
    essential in our national interest to do so. We should also, however, engage constructively in the rest of the debate and get the best deal for Britain.
    Mr. Ben Chapman: My right hon. Friend will be aware that, on many occasions and over a long time, the issue of compensation for former prisoners of war in the far east has been raised. I am pleased, and indeed proud, that it is this Government who have made the decision to award that compensation. However, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is a matter not only of financial settlement, but of this generation recognising the sacrifice and suffering incurred, on its behalf, by an earlier generation?
    The Prime Minister: The financial gratuity can never, of course, compensate properly for the pain and suffering that people went through: more than 12,000 people died as far east prisoners of war or as civilians. Yesterday, I met some of those who survived, and some of the widows of those who were killed in those camps, and one simply cannot fail to be struck by their courage, fortitude and commitment. I am pleased that we were able to make this payment to them. I think that it is long overdue, and that it goes some way to recognising the sacrifice that they made in the interests of this country.
    Mr. Tim Loughton: Does the Prime Minister share my concern about the news overnight that the motor company Daewoo has gone bankrupt, and the impact that that will have on the Daewoo European Technical Centre in my constituency in Worthing and the 700 jobs that it provides? Will he and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry bring every pressure to bear on the Korean authorities, particularly the receiver, to ensure that new owners can be arranged as soon as possible, to maintain that centre of excellence in my constituency as a viable and intact business that has a great bearing on our whole economy and not only on that of the south coast?
    The Prime Minister: I can certainly assure the hon. Gentleman that we will do everything we can; indeed, our ambassador in Korea is already in touch with the Korean authorities. It is an extremely difficult situation, and I
    314
    understand the concern and anxiety that his constituents must have. We will do all we possibly can. The centre is highly renowned and very much valued indeed. I am sure that, if we can, we will secure a future for it. However, it is something that will have to be discussed in detail in the coming days and weeks.
    Mr. Geraint Davies: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, on the economy, the real choice facing the British people is not between those who claim to spend more and those who claim to tax less, but between the 1 million new jobs created by the Labour party—thereby allowing more spending and lower tax, as people do not draw the dole when they are working—and Tory boom and bust, in which there are millions of people on the dole, bankruptcies, repossessions and, consequently, higher taxes and service cuts?
    The Prime Minister: Two very obvious things will happen with the Conservatives, the first of which is the £60 billion of spending cuts. It is increasingly clear that those spending cuts will fall on schools, hospitals, transport, police and so on. Additionally, the policy that they are now pursuing is an absolute replica of boom and bust—which is exactly what would happen. We must avoid the danger of replicating those policies of the late 1980s and early 1990s.
    To show you, Mr. Speaker, that the Opposition do not even know in which direction they need to drive their bandwagons, how about this speech from the shadow Chief Secretary this morning? Once they have decided that we might be helping people in the pre-Budget report, the shadow Chief Secretary goes on the radio and says:
    If the Chancellor gives a large amount away, either in tax reductions or in spending increases, the fact is you'll just have a huge hit on interest rates from the Bank of England.
    The interviewer said:
    So we could expect prudence?
    The shadow Chief Secretary said:
    We certainly ought to demand prudence.
    The Opposition have been going around telling us to do all these things; now they come along today and ask for prudence. Well, I hope they cheer when they get it.

Pre-Budget Statement
3.30 pm
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): In 1997, Britain had a £28 billion deficit, a national debt that had doubled and rising inflation, and was at risk of repeating the old familiar cycle of stop-go. So in this pre-Budget report, which will address specific and immediate concerns, we will do nothing to put at risk the economic stability that has given this country the lowest unemployment for 20 years, the lowest inflation for 30 years, mortgages 4 per cent.—£1,000—below the average of the previous 20 years, and a Budget discipline that has enabled us to cut borrowing and to invest more every year in hospitals, schools and public services.
This hard won and newly won stability now gives Britain an opportunity that we can either seize or squander. It is the opportunity to achieve high levels of productivity growth, and so to ensure long-term prosperity not just for some, but for all. Yet every time the British economy has started to grow—as in the 1980s—Governments have made short-term decisions on tax and spending which have put inflation, interest rates and economic stability at risk. So Britain has a choice: the choice that underlies the pre-Budget report.
The risk for Britain is to repeat the 1980s mistake of taking economic strength for granted when we still have a large productivity gap with our competitors, and trying to run the economy at a capacity not yet achieved. Our choice—the choice of this pre-Budget report—is that we build economic strength by investing and, through tax incentives, encourage a new generation of entrepreneurs.
The risk for Britain is to repeat the late 1980s mistake of claiming that a surplus in one year could fund tax cuts for every year, and, by committing in tax what had yet to be earned, stoking up an unsustainable consumer boom and forcing interest and mortgage rates to rise. We will take no risks with stability. Our choice—the choice of the pre-Budget report—is to lock in stability by, as I shall announce today, prudently cutting debt and debt interest payments to keep inflation and interest rates low.
The risk for Britain would be to cut investment in education and infrastructure and to perpetuate decades of neglect and undermine our economy. This pre-Budget report makes a different choice: to move forward with our three-year spending plans, which will double public investment—from investment in education and health to investment in transport, policing and the environment; and, while continuing to cut unemployment and debt interest, to combine public spending with targeted tax cuts to do more for pensioners and, as I will show, to give families the lowest direct tax burden for 30 years. This pre-Budget statement sets out a balanced approach: first stability and prudence to keep interest rates low, secondly tackling under-investment, and then, when it is affordable to do so, making targeted tax cuts for the nation's priorities.
Let me deal first with the forecasts for the economy. Since 1997, our first and most fundamental choice has been—through Bank of England independence, tough controls on public spending and difficult decisions on tax—to build economic stability. There were those in the House who predicted that our policies would bring recession. I can report that this year inflation is meeting its 2.5 per cent. target, and that long-term interest rates
316
are now the lowest for 30 years—the same as those in Germany, and lower than those in America. The economy is forecast to grow by 3 per cent. this year, and manufacturing—despite its difficulties—by 1½ per cent. Exports are growing by 8 per cent. and consumer demand by 3½ per cent., with living standards rising. Business investment has grown by 1 per cent. this year as we lock in a higher level of investment as a share of our economy—14½ per cent.—than at any time in 40 years. Investment is now a bigger share of our economy than it is of the American economy.
In total, fixed investment this year has grown by 2.5 per cent. With 1.1 million men and women in work, Britain now has the lowest unemployment since 1979, the lowest long-term unemployment since 1978, the lowest youth unemployment since 1975, and the highest employment ever among women. Unemployment is now lower in every region: today, there are 1 million vacancies spread across the country. This month, we plan to reach our promised target: 250 young people moved from welfare into work—[Interruption.]—250,000 young people.
It is precisely because we have taken the trouble to build the long-term foundations for success, and precisely because we have resisted short-termism that would threaten stability in interest rates, that I can report that, even in times of uncertainty for the world economy over oil prices and exchange rates, the Treasury forecast for next year is as follows: inflation will again meet its target of 2½ per cent; manufacturing next year will grow by between 2 and 2¼ per cent.; exports will grow by 7 to 7½ to per cent.; growth will range from 2¼ to 2¾ per cent.; consumer demand will grow by 1½ to 2 per cent.; business investment will grow by 1 to 2 per cent., and total investment will grow by 4¼ to 4½ per cent.
There were those who predicted our public spending plans would lead to higher inflation and that the economy would run out of control. Between 1979 and 1997, inflation averaged 6.2 per cent. Since 1997, it has been less than half as much—2.4 per cent. Interest rates averaged 10 per cent.; since 1997 they have averaged 6 per cent. Mortgage rates from 1979 averaged 11 per cent.; since 1997 they have averaged 7 per cent. Growth from 1979 averaged 2 per cent.; since 1997 it has been 2.7 per cent.
We have steered a course of stability, but we are not satisfied. Long-term prosperity for all is our objective. We want to achieve, in this decade, full employment, higher education for the majority of young people and sustained improvements in our public services. With an end to child and pensioner poverty, we want not just some but all of our citizens to share in rising prosperity.
That long-term prosperity depends on us reaching American levels of productivity growth. By removing the barriers, tackling under-investment and skill deficiencies, overcoming resistance to new technology and removing restrictive practices wherever they arise, we will build a stronger enterprise culture open to all. Today, as part of the Government's contribution to a new and necessary drive for higher productivity, I am proposing measures, to consult on, to encourage entrepreneurship and expand investment.
To make Britain the best place in the world for multinational companies to locate, we will build on our cut in corporation tax from 33p to 30p—the lowest of all

317
major countries and the lowest in our history—by consulting on three major, additional changes. We propose to abolish from April 2001 the withholding tax, not only on international bonds, but normally on payments of interest and royalties between companies in the UK, and to relieve tax on sales of substantial shareholdings by companies. Finally, in line with the needs of the new economy, tax relief will be given for intellectual property and goodwill as we try to create the best environment for modern business in the world.
I can tell the House that this year corporation tax revenues are £2½ billion lower than we forecast. It has been put to me that North sea oil companies earning higher profits from higher oil prices should be subject to special taxes, but I can tell the House that I am determined not to make short-term decisions based on short-term factors. The key issue is the level of long-term investment in the North sea. This will be the approach that will guide Budget decisions in future.
My second set of proposals help small businesses, whose numbers have grown already by 150,000 since 1997. Last year we cut small company corporation tax—once 23p—to 20p and we introduced a new lop rate, an overall cut in small company tax bills of nearly 25 per cent. Today I am publishing for consultation with small businesses a set of proposals that simplify small business VAT; they will be of direct help to up to half a million small businesses. Capital allowances and tax credits to encourage investment have already saved over £800 million for business since 1997, a third of a billion pounds of that in manufacturing.
Because I understand and recognise the importance of manufacturing, I will now examine, for the Budget, further incentives to help the manufacturing sector: in particular the proposals from the Confederation of British Industry and the Engineering Employers Federation to extend the research and development tax credit.
To help smaller high risk and e-commerce companies recruit and retain the staff they need, we propose to expand tax relief for share options and to make Britain the most attractive environment for e-commerce. In future, all employees can benefit from our enterprise incentive scheme—up to a company limit of £2½ million worth of share options. For the period to May 2000, 1 propose to make provision for companies to limit and settle their liability for national insurance contributions on share options.
Having cut capital gains tax from 40p to lop for long-term investment, I now propose an even further widening of the scope of the 10p rate—to non-trading companies and to venture capital companies so that employees of all types of companies can now benefit from the 10p capital gains rate.
To enhance the contribution of institutional investors to the economy, we will consult on the Myners report proposals to reform the minimum funding requirement and to remove regulatory barriers to investing in venture capital.
To expand savings generally, and especially to double the number of low-income families who save, we will review all the capital limits that deter saving. Already, 9 million individual savings accounts have been opened, and £3 billion more is being saved in them by low-income savers. The tax-free limit for ISA savers has been set for next year at £5,000. I propose once more to set it at £7,000, a figure I shall set now for the next five years.
318
To build enterprise and balanced economic development across all the regions and public investment, including public-private partnerships, we are proposing today that regional development agencies have greater freedom and flexibility to decide locally how money is invested for them to meet local needs.
The rate of small business creation in high unemployment communities is still one sixth of that in more prosperous areas, and unemployment is still twice as high. Future jobs and long-term prosperity will not come from benefit cheques or the old subsidies, but by a radically different approach—encouraging economic activity and business development along the lines proposed by the Cohen and Rogers reports.
I now propose a radical reform of tax incentives that is designed to raise business investment and economic activity in the high unemployment areas of the country by £1 billion. I propose to introduce stamp duty exemption for all properties in our most disadvantaged communities; accelerated tax relief for cleaning up contaminated land; VAT cuts to reduce the costs of residential property conversions; and tax relief to bring empty flats over shops back into use.
I propose to consult on further business rate relief for small businesses in the assisted areas, and a new and generous tax credit for community investment, including support for the creation of the first community development venture fund.
To assist the upgrading of listed buildings that are central to community life in all parts of the country, I can also announce that we are today asking the European Commission to reduce VAT from 17½ per cent. to 5 per cent. for repairs to churches.
I have one other proposal for a special tax relief. We will not only continue to work for the cut in third-world debt that this and other countries are fighting for, but we now plan to do more to meet the international targets of cutting world poverty by half and cutting by two thirds infant mortality, which, through preventable diseases, carries off one in seven of the world's children before they reach the age of five.
As one of a number of proposals that the Secretary of State for International Development and I are working on to tackle child poverty, the Government will investigate a new tax incentive and a spending measure to develop, cut the costs for and ensure the supply of anti-TB, anti-malaria and anti-AIDS drugs—drugs that could save lives and that are tragically still unavailable in the poorest countries, but drugs which have the potential, which must now be realised, to reduce avoidable suffering and unacceptable deaths.
I turn to the pre-Budget measures to meet our goal of full employment. In addition to making work pay through the 10p income tax rate, our working families tax credit and the new deal—which some would abolish, but which, as independent research shows, has cut youth unemployment by 40 per cent. more than would have happened without it—the Secretary of State for Education and Employment and I will work to intensify coaching help for the 50,000 young people who are still out of work. We will consult on introducing a new service that will help redundant workers to move quickly into new jobs. We will investigate how, with tax-free and, in some cases, free adult learning, we can help to upgrade fast-changing workplace skills.

319
We will extend the new deal for lone parents with our nationwide programme of choices starting next April, and extend to a further 150,000 lone parents not on income support the opportunity, in the programme of choices, to get back to work. We will agree a new partnership with the voluntary sector to help those with disabilities who want work to get it, while with a £200 million a year additional package that the Secretary of State for Social Security will announce tomorrow, we will take action to improve the living standards of those unable to work who are disabled, and of those who care for them. For each area, we will proceed to draw up local full employment plans addressing all barriers to full employment in their local areas.
High productivity and rising employment depend not just on ending decades of under-investment and targeting tax incentives on our priorities, but on entrenching a low-inflation culture that prudently keeps interest rates and mortgage rates as low as possible. It is because we have learned from the mistakes of the 1980s and before, that I can tell the House that, in spite of the demands that are being made to me, 1 have decided, in the interests of keeping interest rates and mortgage rates as low as possible, to lock in over the coming years a fiscal stance that is the same or tighter than we set at the time of the Budget.
Let me give the House the background and the full financial figures. Our first rule—the golden rule, which is necessary to keep interest rates and mortgage rates as low as possible—is that over the cycle there must be a current surplus. So, however tempting it may be for some to identify large temporary surpluses as an excuse for permanent injections of resources into the economy, our golden rule demands that there is constant prudence.
In the Budget, I forecast this year's current surplus at £14 billion. I now forecast it to be £16.6 billion. In the years from 2001–02 onwards, the current surpluses are forecast to be £16 billion, £14 billion, £8 billion and £8 billion—figures that will ensure that we remain on course to balance the current Budget over the economic cycle, even on the most cautious of cases.
Our second fiscal rule—the sustainable investment rule, which is a bulwark against short-termism that again helps to keep interest and mortgage rates as low as possible—is that while, over the cycle, we will borrow for investment, we do not borrow for consumption and we keep debt at a prudent and sustainable level below 40 per cent of national income.
After a doubling of national debt in the early 1990s, the ratio of debt to national income had by 1997 risen to 44 per cent. Having made the necessary and difficult tax and spending decisions, in the three years since 1997 we have reduced the ratio of debt to national income from 44 per cent., to 41.9 per cent., to 39.6 per cent., and now to 36.8 per cent. this April. I can report to the House that two decisions—first, the decision to use the proceeds from the spectrum auction to reduce our debt and, secondly, to use this year's surplus for repayment of debt—now make possible a further and even more substantial reduction in debt that will keep interest rates low.
Because we are, in total, cutting the debt by as much as one third, I can report to the House that the public sector net debt as a share of gross domestic product will
320
now fall from 36.8 per cent. last year to 32.3 per cent. this year to 30.9 per cent. in 2001–02. In addition, from what was a debt to GDP ratio as high as 44 per cent. in 1997, I can report that this ratio is forecast to fall to 30 per cent. and remain there in future years. With long-term interest rates lower and debt well within that 40 per cent. ceiling, we are not only well placed to deal with the inevitable ups and downs of the economic cycle, but we have the best platform possible for years for sustained long-term growth.
Our budget forecast for net borrowing was a surplus of £6½ billion this year. Now, we forecast the surplus to be £10 billion, and £6 billion next year. In future, the deficits will be £1 billion, £10 billion, £12 billion and £13 billion as we borrow to invest. In every one of the next five years, adjusting for the economic cycle, there will be a fiscal stance that is the same or tighter than at the time of the Budget—and this year, with the spectrum proceeds, the net cash debt repayment will be £28 billion.
Our approach is to reject the old vicious circle of the '80s—rising debt, higher long-term interest rates, higher debt repayment costs, lower growth, higher unemployment, then enforced cuts in public spending. That was the old boom and bust. Instead, as we have promised, we have by our decisions created a virtuous circle of falling debt, lower long-term interest rates, lower unemployment, lower debt repayments and a stronger economy releasing more resources for public services.
I can report to Members that because of this virtuous circle, lower unemployment has brought savings in social security which, compared with the Budget, provide an additional £1.5 billion next year, and £2 billion and £2½ billion in the next two years after that. In addition to higher Government revenues this year from higher employment, higher earnings growth and from steady growth, debt interest payments are now lower than we forecast at the time of the Budget—by £2½ billion next year and £2 billion in each of the next two years after that.
When we came into Government, we were paying out more in debt interest payments than we were spending on all our schools in the country. Soon, as a result of cutting these debt payments, we will be able to spend 50 per cent. more on our schools than we do on debt interest. Over the past 20 years, 42p of every additional pound spent went to debt interest and social security. In the early '90s, it rose to 50 per cent. of every additional pound spent. Debt and social security will now require only 17p of every pound, and that leaves more than 80p in every pound of additional spending to go to hospitals, schools and vital services, and it enables us to tackle the long-term under-investment in Britain.
Because we have cut the costs of debt and unemployment—now costing £5 billion less than in 1997—and because we have secured sustainable growth, we are able to lock in the fiscal tightening and meet all our fiscal rules, and, within this prudent framework, we are in an even stronger position than in July to tackle under-investment and to target tax cuts on our nation's priorities.
Since July, I have received representations from many people in this House about public spending, including representations from the Conservatives, who propose spending growth only in line with 2 per cent. GDP growth a year. I have studied that proposal in detail. It would

321
mean, by year three, cuts in spending of £16 billion—and after taking into account the measures I will announce on pensions today, more than £16 billion.
I have rejected those representations, and because the economy both needs and can afford to—and cannot afford not to—tackle the under-investment in our country, the Education Secretary will tomorrow, as part of allocating his annual 5 per cent. real-terms increase in education next year, announce new resources for the Learning and Skills Council.
Because investment is needed in our infrastructure not just for social but for economic reasons, the Minister for Transport will announce how every region, city and town will benefit from new investment in roads. With new funds from the spending review allocated to each region for economic regeneration, the Deputy Prime Minister will shortly publish his rural and urban White Papers.
As part of the 5.6 per cent. real-terms rise in NHS spending for the next three years, the Secretary of State for Health will announce for each of those years his allocation to health authorities up to 2004, giving them the stability and certainty that they want for their spending.
In addition to the statement on pensions from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security tomorrow, and the extra allocation that we have made to improve flood defences, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment will announce today additional allocations to our schools.
The windfall tax is money raised from the utilities specifically for the purpose of extending employment opportunity through the new deal and educational opportunity through renovating, so far, 17,000 schools. Such has been the success of the new deal in getting people back to work that the windfall levy account is underspent by £200 million. So my right hon. Friend and I have decided that, in addition to this year's rise in education spending, lower unemployment means that we can allocate new money to every school in every constituency of the country—money to be available this year for repairs and improvements; money to be paid direct to the school.
The head teacher of every primary school will receive a cheque for between £4,000 and £7,000. The head teacher of each secondary school will receive, for the smaller schools, £10,000, and for the larger schools, £30,000: prudence once again for a purpose, enabling us to target resources to our priorities and in a sustainable way. That prudence now allows us to match public spending increases by tax cuts targeted on the country's priorities, including making reforms in the tax treatment of transport and the environment, to which I now turn.
Between 1997 and 1999, retaining the fuel escalator introduced in 1993 helped cut borrowing by £30 billion, helping deliver lower interest rates. It enabled us to begin the long-overdue investment in transport, the NHS and schools, and it will have brought about a cut in carbon dioxide pollution by an estimated 1 million to 2½ million tonnes of pollution by the year 2010.
Today, like all countries, we are having to deal with the rise in world oil prices from $11 to $31. Because the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries itself accepts that the world price is unacceptably high, our international efforts are geared to ensuring that production is raised and prices fall. Therefore, I recognise and
322
understand the very genuine concerns that motorists and hauliers have. It is because we have already managed to cut our deficit, already set aside £180 billion for our 10-year transport plan, and already shown how we are meeting the Kyoto targets, that in the last Budget we removed the fuel escalator and made environmentally based cuts in car and lorry licence fees, and gave new incentives for environmentally efficient fuels. In line with the principles that we set down then, I am now able to show how we can complete those reforms and do more to meet people's concerns, without putting at risk economic stability, necessary investment in public services or the environmental gains. Indeed, the reforms that I propose today are tailor-made to meet our environmental obligations.
The annual rise in the price of fuel that would be automatically introduced on Budget day would raise £560 million, putting petrol and diesel up by about lip a litre. I propose, at that cost of £560 million, a freeze in excise duties—an across-the-board duty freeze on all fuels that would initially last until April 2002, and, if the oil price remains high between now and then, I can tell the House that there would be a duty freeze for a further year.
I intend to go further, however, in three vital respects. On top of the duty freeze that we had budgeted for in our fiscal arithmetic, the first of the proposals I will consult upon would itself involve additional expenditure of as much as £1,000 million and help to promote substantial benefit to the environment. Yesterday, we published a report showing the environmental benefits from the introduction of ultra-low sulphur diesel in reducing local air pollution. As a result of cuts we made in excise duty on ultra-low sulphur diesel, usage of that fuel has risen in Britain from 20 per cent. in 1997 to 40 per cent. in 1998 to 100 per cent. in 2000. It requires no change to be made in lorry and van engines. It now accounts for virtually 100 per cent. of the market for diesel in Britain today, and Britain is now leading in this cleaner diesel fuel.
We now need to build on that environmental achievement. The widespread use of ultra-low sulphur petrol would further and significantly improve local air quality. Crucially, it would require no change to existing car engines. It is now time to make this cleaner fuel available in every petrol station in the United Kingdom and to make the use of this fuel, which requires no change in any car, cheaper for everyone. To do so I propose to cut the excise duty for ultra-low sulphur petrol so that it replaces unleaded petrol in every petrol station and at a lower excise duty.
On 1 October, we reduced the duty on ultra-low sulphur petrol by 1 p a litre. I propose from Budget 2001 a further reduction of 2p a litre—making a cut of 3p in total on all ultra-low sulphur petrol. Because it is right to maintain the proper balance between petrol and diesel, I propose also from Budget day to match the cut in ultra-low sulphur petrol with a 3p cut in excise duties on ultra-low sulphur diesel, which will go to all diesel users. I expect ultra-slow sulphur petrol and diesel to account for 100 per cent. of the market next year. When the excise duty cut is introduced at Budget time, motorists using any petrol station in Britain should be able to benefit from this duty cut.

323
It is by giving this incentive for cleaner fuels that we can both advance our environmental principles and ensure—with the 3p cut per litre in all ultra-low sulphur duty—a cheaper cleaner fuel available in every garage, a better deal for drivers and cleaner air across Britain.
I can also announce that for all cars that still use lead replacement petrol—where there is no longer an environmental case for a higher duty rate—I propose from Budget day to end the differential and cut the excise duty by 2p a litre.
I now intend to go further to help the haulage industry, which is undergoing restructuring. I propose support for scrapping or converting older lorries, with a £100 million investment fund that will include help for buying the new lorries that meet the technological and environmental standards of the future and support for the introduction of logistics and computerisation in the industry. The Deputy Prime Minister will also announce help for an industrywide training and retraining scheme.
We can do more. So that foreign lorries pay their share of the costs of using our roads, we intend to introduce in Britain a vignette system, a British disc under which non-British companies and lorries pay their share to Britain for using British roads.
The Government have considered an essential-user rebate or blue diesel scheme for lorry diesel. However, such a scheme would be administratively cumbersome; it could be levied only on future purchases of diesel; it would have to be open to foreign lorries using British roads; it would not help hauliers where their fuel prices are directly passed on to customers; and it would have no environmental benefits in itself.
The scheme I am proposing is far better. Subject to consultation and legal clearance, I now propose to bring forward a much needed reform, begun last year, in vehicle excise duty for lorries. It will radically cut rates for larger lorries that have traditionally high licence fees. The scheme will be implemented in Budget 2001. It will sweep aside the 100 separate rates; it will consolidate them into only seven rate bands, which will be linked to environmental standards; and we shall cut the rates to match the lowest in Europe.
Lorries in the most competitive sector will save over £2,000. Over 250,000 lorries will each pay lower licence fees as a result of a £300 million total cut in licence fee costs. One hundred thousand lorries will save over £1,000. The average saving per lorry will be £715 a year. The cuts are equivalent in value to a cut of 3p in the price of diesel for the haulage industry—again, with environmental incentives built in to the new licence system. Our proposals for the detailed new scheme and licence rates are published today, and the Government are able to start the transitional arrangements to the new licence system immediately.
I have allocated £265 million for this financial year—half of the annual revenue raised from lorry VED—to be spent before March for a refund scheme that can repay lorry owners up to half of this year's licence fee. Two hundred and fifty thousand lorries and all large lorries will benefit from the refunds—they will be worth, for some of the largest lorries paying the highest fees, £1,000, and up to £4,000 this year. Refunds will be paid from next month,
324
with payments to be completed by the end of January. The detailed arrangements will be announced by the Minister for Transport.
To help restructuring and investment in farming, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food announced last week an addition to this year's £220 million packages of measures: agrimoney compensation for arable producers. In addition to freezing red diesel duty at its current rate, I intend in Budget 2001 to abolish vehicle excise duty on tractors and agricultural vehicles.
I now have a similar proposal for car licence fees. It is consistent with our environmental principle that we tax vehicle ownership less, and I now want to complete the environmentally based reform of vehicle excise duties for cars. The new licence fee that we are introducing for new cars registered from March 2001 is linked to environmental efficiency. For all cars under 1200 cc, there is now a lower rate licence fee with a £55 deduction on the standard fee.
While that change has been welcomed, many—especially those in rural areas—have put it to me that greater choice would be available to rural motorists and motorists generally if the £55 deduction could be accessible not only for cars under 1200 cc, but for cars up to 1500 cc, including the Focus, Golf, Astra, Escort and Rover 214. Therefore, I propose to extend the lower rate licence fee and the £55 discount to cars up to 1500 cc, to be paid out from July but to be backdated to today. All those who have a car from 1200 cc to 1500 cc—that is, an extra 5 million cars—will be entitled to £55 off their annual licence fee from today. In total, 8½ million existing cars—one in three—will now pay £55 below the standard fee.
So for motorists as a whole, with the duty freeze, the new reduced licence fee and the cut for ultra-low sulphur petrol, the proposed Budget package will make changes worth the equivalent of a 4p a litre cut while meeting our environmental objectives. By next year, for the haulage industry, there will be changes worth the equivalent of a cut of 8p a litre. In each case, we shall be meeting our environmental obligations and not putting at risk public investment in our vital services or the stability of the economy. Ministers are now inviting discussion of those measures in the pre-Budget consultation, which will take place as Ministers visit every region of the country.
I come now to specific measures of benefit to families and to pensioners. Our aim is that not just some, but every child has the best start in life and that we halve child poverty in the coming decade. Families need help most at the time when parents are bringing up their children. As we extend our new integrated system of child support—from £15 a week for every child to a maximum of £50 a week—our priority in the coming Budget is the new children's tax credit, which is a tax cut for families. This family tax cut, which replaces the married couple's allowance, will be paid on top of child benefit to around 5 million families at £8.50 a week, worth £442 a year.
On current figures, the proposals on which we are consulting would, if implemented, mean that overall the tax burden would not rise next year, and I will achieve my aim of next year cutting the direct tax burden on the typical family to below 20 per cent. It will fall to 18.6 per cent., the lowest level since 1972. However, I believe that in the coming Budget we can offer a larger tax cut for

325
families. My aim is to increase the family tax cut to £10 a week, in total a £520 a year tax cut that will increase families' incomes.
Just as we are introducing a new system of child support based on the foundation of child benefit—at the heart of which is the working families tax credit and the children's tax credit—so too it is now time, based on exactly the same principles, to raise pensioner incomes by a tax and benefit reform that will have as its foundation the basic state pension, and will have as its building block—like the working families tax credit—a new and generous pension credit.
Our aim for pensions reform is both to end pensioner poverty and to ensure that all pensioners share in the rising prosperity of the nation. In a new world of rapidly diverging pensioner incomes—already, 17 per cent. of couples are retiring on more than £20,000 a year, a percentage which grows year by year—and where, as a result, inequalities between pensioner incomes are as great as inequalities within the population as a whole, we will best meet our obligations to pensioners by a new approach.
To plan for the future based on a flat rate earnings-linked rise paid to all, which would give exactly the same to those with incomes above £20,000 as to those on middle incomes—and because the income support system would do absolutely nothing for the poorest—would mean that by the time today's 45-year-olds were retiring, for every £6 billion extra spent on the earnings link, £2 billion would go to pensioners with incomes above £20,000 at today's prices. That would mean that less would be available for the middle and lower income pensioners in greatest need, who are our first priority.
We need a policy that does most for those who need most and at the same time ensures that all pensioners—the very poor, those on modest incomes and the relatively comfortable—share in the rising prosperity of the nation. Let me tell the House what the new system, which will integrate tax and benefits and build upon the basic pension a new pension credit, will look like in 2003, and then I will set out the transitional arrangements.
First, for those in and at risk of poverty, we will radically improve the minimum income guarantee. I can tell the House that the minimum income guarantee, which was £68.80 in 1997, is £78.45 today, and will be raised in April by £14 a week to £92.15. For thousands of our poorest pensioners, that will mean £700 extra a year. I can also tell the House that when the new system is introduced in April 2003, the minimum income guarantee will be set not at £92, but at £100 a week, £22 a week more than today. For the first time, a single pensioner will be guaranteed at least £100 a week. For couples, there will be a rise from £106.60 in 1997 to £154. Every year after that, I can tell the House that the minimum income guarantee will be raised in line with earnings.
With the winter allowance, there will be a 32 per cent. increase in pensioner income for this group even after inflation. That demonstrates our determination that no pensioner is left behind as the Government work to ensure that pensioner poverty in this country becomes a thing of the past. More than 2 million pensioners will benefit. People will be able to claim by phone. They will do so at the point of retirement, and adjustments thereafter would need to be made only when circumstances changed.
326
We have a second obligation—to millions of pensioners who, after a lifetime of hard work, have modest occupational pensions and modest savings, but receive nothing, and have received nothing over the years, from the system on top of their basic pension and have until now been penalised, not rewarded, for their savings.
These are people whom we meet every week in our constituencies, and this Government are determined that people who have worked hard and saved hard all their lives should now receive more.
Tomorrow the Secretary of State for Social Security's statement will outline the new integrated tax and benefit system—both the pension credit and the new pensioner tax arrangements. I said in the Budget that we wanted the beneficiaries of the new credit to be single pensioners with incomes of up to £100 and pensioner couples with incomes up to £150. I can now say to the House that pensioner couples with incomes below £200, and single pensioners with incomes below £135—many millions of pensioners—will now receive this new pension credit when it is introduced. I can also tell the House that, while the pension will rise in line with inflation, the new pension credit will also rise in line with earnings every year.
In this way, we will give recipients of the pension credit more than even the earnings link in the basic state pension would give them. The pensioners tax allowance will be set at April 2003 at an even higher level— £6,560 for the single pensioner before tax is paid—and for the next Parliament we propose the pensioners tax allowance will also rise in line with earnings.
For the vast majority of pensioners, therefore—middle and low-income pensioners—in Britain, the new system will provide extra cash on top of the basic pension: sums of between £1 and £23 a week extra. And we will achieve all our aims: for millions of the neediest pensioners, relief from poverty; for those on modest incomes, a reward for their savings and occupational pensions higher than an earnings link would give them; and ensuring that all pensioners can enjoy a share in the rising standards of living of our country.
As we move to this new and better system, the Secretary of State for Social Security and I have decided that the transitional arrangements should ensure that over the next two years, pensioner incomes should rise faster than inflation—indeed, faster than earnings—so from April next year we propose that, for the single pensioner, there should be a cash increase of £5 a week; and for a married couple, a rise of £8 a week. I can tell the House that in the following year we can also guarantee the pension will rise above prices—a cash increase of £3 for single pensioners and £4.80 for married couples. Over two years, therefore, there will be a cash rise of £8 for single pensioners and £12.80 for couples—for pensions, £2.6 billion more: more than the link with earnings would give; more each year, on top of more for health, education, transport, policing and the public services.
Those who would spend this money on tax cutting should now tell us which hospitals, which schools, which public services they would cut. The Government have made our choice: investment; targeted tax cuts; keeping mortgage rates low; more for pensions and families—a stronger, fairer Britain.
I have one final announcement. I have had representations to abolish the winter fuel allowance, and, indeed, to abolish the free TV licence for over-75s. I have

327
even received representations to abolish the Christmas bonus. I have rejected such options, which would give with one hand and take with another.
I can confirm that, now and in future years, the free TV licence will remain for the over-75s as we have promised; the Christmas bonus will continue; and the winter allowance will be paid at £150. But the transitional arrangements to our new pension reform will start not next year but this year; indeed they will start this week. I can confirm that cheques are being sent out from Monday that will be paid to every pensioner household in Britain. The winter allowance will not be paid at £150 this year. Nor will it be abolished. For this year specially—the first year of the transitional arrangements—it will be paid not at £150, but at £200 for every pensioner household, free of tax.
I commend the statement to the House.
Mr. Michael Portillo: I begin by drawing attention to my declaration of Member's interests.
This is the first chance that I have had to address the Chancellor since his wedding, and I should like to congratulate him and his wife
and wish them both every happiness.
There is much in the right hon. Gentleman's statement which, on reflection, we will be able to welcome, particularly the changes in VAT on churches and the initiative that he announced today on aid to the third world. However, it was certainly not the statement that the Chancellor intended to make.
In all the Chancellor's public pronouncements, he boasts about how he always plans for the long term and how he abhors quick fixes. The statement was all about short-term tactics and quick fixes. [Interruption.] The Chancellor today was in full retreat. [Interruption.] Indeed, this was the statement that the Chancellor told us he would never—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. The House must come to order.
Mr. Portillo: This was the statement that the Chancellor told us he would never be able to make. Did not Ministers tell us time and again that they could give no concessions to pensioners and no concessions to motorists? [Interruption.] Yes, they did, because they said that that could be done only at the expense of closing schools and hospitals. Why did not the Chancellor repeat that spurious nonsense today? Can he tell us, as a result of the changes that he has made today, how many schools and hospitals he has had to close? Once again, the insincerity and spin of this Labour Government have been laid bare.
The Chancellor tells us that things have changed because he now has a large surplus. Whose surplus is it, anyway? It is the people's surplus. It has arisen because the people of this country have been overtaxed. The Chancellor has overtaxed the British people: £5 billion of that surplus has come from the taxes that he has imposed on pension funds; £5 billion has come from the extra taxes that he has imposed on business; and £5 billion has come from the extra duties that he has imposed on petrol and diesel.
328
Those foolish increases in duty led to one of the two problems that the Chancellor had to come to the House to address today. The fuel protest was in fact a revolt by the taxpayers of this country, who have been overtaxed by the Chancellor—people who are not well off and who have been overtaxed—but he proposes to tax them even more.
The Chancellor's figures revealed today confirm that there would be no room for tax cuts under a future Labour Government. [Interruption.] Today the right hon. Gentleman is in pre-election mode, but will he admit that his plans to raise public spending by more than the country can afford year after year mean that there will be tax increases year after year in the coming Parliament? Does he have any understanding of what the extra burden of tax and regulation means for our economy? [Interruption.]
Today's statement, like all the Chancellor's others, was characterised by a great deal of micro-economic meddling by a highly interventionist Chancellor who is fiddling while Britain slips behind. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nor] Oh, yes. The Chancellor was very selective in the figures that he gave us today. Why is it that since the Chancellor has been in charge—[Interruption.] Hon. Members should listen to this.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I appeal to the House to allow the right hon. Gentleman to state his case.
Mr. Portillo: Why is it that since the Chancellor has been in charge, Britain has grown half as fast as the United States? Why is it that, over the past three years, the growth in the British economy has been slower than it was in the previous 15 years? Why is it that under Labour, Britain's share of world exports is slipping fast? Why has productivity been cut by half under the Government, so that it is now half the United States rate? Those are the proper measures of Labour's lack of economic success.
Let me tell the Chancellor today that his changes to individual savings accounts will not help. This is the Chancellor who raided the nation's pension funds and abolished PEPs and TESSAs, and this is the Chancellor who has reduced the nation's savings to their lowest level since 1963.
Is it not ludicrous, too, that the Chancellor who abolished mortgage interest relief, and who has done more than any other to raise stamp duty year after year, now tries to pose as the house buyer's friend in inner cities? If he claims that cuts in stamp duty in inner cities will help householders and businesses, will he now admit how much damage he has done with the swingeing increases that he has imposed in the past?
For all the Chancellor's gimmicks, the simple fact is that, because taxes have been rising, real disposable incomes in Britain have not been growing. People noticed that before the economists did, and that is what the fuel protest was about, and that is when the taxpayers bit back.
The Chancellor loves to talk of stability, but he has delivered a standstill. He has delivered a Britain in which living standards are not rising and the traffic does not move. The Chancellor's proudest invention—the stealth-tax policy—now lies in ruins.
Was it not this Chancellor—let us all remember this—who not only caused the problem of the fuel protest, but the problem with the pensioners as well? It was this

329
Chancellor, was it not, who insulted Britain's pensioners by raising their pensions by 75p? Was it not this Chancellor who, being far too clever by half, decided to raise the pension by 1.1 per cent. and fuel by 3.4 per cent., and claim that both were in line with inflation? I tell the Chancellor of the Exchequer today that Britain's pensioners will never forget what he did to them. [Interruption.] We welcome—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) should not shout across the Chamber.
Mr. Portillo: We welcome the extra money for pensioners, but here again there were short-term fixes. When will the Chancellor of the Exchequer come up with a long-term solution for properly funded pensions in Britain? Will not today's announcement dent the Chancellor's credibility even more? Is not this the man—and listen to this—[Horn. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Well, I am going to quote the Chancellor. If hon. Members do not want to listen to the Chancellor, that's all right. Is not this the man who, addressing the Labour party conference before the last election, said, "I want the next Labour Government to achieve what in 50 years of the welfare state has never been achieved—the end of means-testing of our elderly people." Yet today he has announced the most massive extension of means-testing for elderly people. I remind Labour Members what means-stesting means. It means all the indignities and humiliations of filling out the form.
The Chancellor has done that in two ways. He has vastly increased the number of people who now have to apply for means-tested benefits, and, on top of that, pensioners with savings must now also be means-stested if they are to qualify for their credits. Is not the whole scheme typical of the Chancellor? It is a scheme so incredibly complicated that none of our constituents will be able to understand it, and none will know what they are entitled to.
Today, the Chancellor has announced the rates of pension that the Conservatives will inherit if we come to office in May. We welcome them, but we, the Conservatives, will do better. Under a Conservative Government, the pension next April would be £9.50 higher for a single pensioner over 60 or 65; £13 higher for a pensioner couple over 65; £11.60 higher for a single pensioner over 75; and £16.10 higher for a pensioner couple over 75.
We are perfectly straightforward about the fact that we would roll up the winter fuel allowance, the Christmas bonus and the free television licence for the over-75s, and we would use all that money, and the many millions of pounds saved in administration costs, to pay a higher weekly pension. Moreover—I want the Prime Minister to take this in—we would make that money tax free and we would adjust the income-related benefits as well.
The taxpayer revolt this summer marked a watershed, and the moment when people in this country realised that the Labour Government had betrayed them. Conservatives warned the Government [Interruption.] Oh, yes. We said that we should charge foreign lorries for driving on our roads. We voted against the duty increases and campaigned against them; we recommended a 3p cut for fuel, and the Chancellor would not listen. However, it seems that he has had to listen. It seems that he has had
330
to listen to everything that we said. The vignette has been introduced today. It was a Conservative idea, as was the 3p cut for fuel. We accept the right hon. Gentleman's tribute to our policy.
The Chancellor proudly told the Labour party conference that he would not give ground to those who pushed the hardest and shouted the most. Does anyone seriously believe that we would have had today's statement if it had not been for fuel protest, the panic on the Labour Benches and the fact that the Government are planning an early election?
When the Chancellor first became a Minister, how did he lose touch so quickly with real life? When he increased the pension by 75p, how did he have so little understanding of what it is like to be a pensioner struggling to get by? How did he have so little understanding of what it is like to be a mother trying to take her children to school [Interruption.] Oh, they laugh—they laugh at mothers taking their children to school. How did the right hon. Gentleman have so little understanding of what it is like to be a mother having to find £50 out of her purse to fill the tank?
The right hon. Gentleman is truly the Chancellor who did not understand. He has come to the House today to shore up his political position. However, he has shown no sign of understanding, and he never says he is sorry. [Interruption.] That refusal to apologise diminishes the Chancellor. He is not half the Chancellor he was a year ago. [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. Once again, I must appeal for order in the House. There should be no shouting across the Chamber.
Mr. Portillo: I do not believe that people will be grateful to the Chancellor for what he has done today. People will remember that he was the cause of the problems. He caused the fuel problem by overtaxing the British people; he caused the pensions problem by insulting our pensioners with the 75p increase. Today he has merely returned a little bit of the people's surplus, but he still plans to take it back through higher taxes if he wins the next election.
When the Chancellor stood up today, Britain had the most expensive petrol in Europe. Now that the Chancellor has sat down, Britain still has the most expensive petrol in Europe. That will be the verdict of the majority. The statement revealed a Chancellor in full retreat, blown about by public opinion, but still a man, who, even in those circumstances, could not come to the House and say, "I'm sorry."
Mr. Brown: I shall answer in detail every point that the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo) made. If he wants to compare our respective records, let us remember what happened when he was at the Treasury: 22 tax rises, interest rates at 15 per cent. for a year, interest rates above 10 per cent. for four years and the exchange rate mechanism debacle. He was the Minister who introduced the fuel escalator, put VAT on fuel, and introduced the airports tax and the insurance tax. He was even one of the brains behind the poll tax.
When the shadow Chancellor said that he welcomed some of our measures—the overseas development tax relief and some of our pensions measures—his silence on

331
other matters was notable. Does he welcome our spending on schools? Does he welcome our spending on transport? The Leader of Opposition said yesterday that under-investment in transport was a problem in Britain. Does he welcome our spending on children's benefits? Does he welcome our spending on getting people back to work?
When the shadow Chancellor says that spending in this country should increase by 2 per cent., not 3.4 per cent; that the gap must be bridged by spending cuts; and that anything more than 2 per cent. is unsustainable and would lead to recession, he has a duty to tell the House how many nurses and doctors, and which schools, hospitals, public services and constituencies, including those of Conservative Members, would suffer as a result of the cuts. And he has no credibility when he says to the House that he will give tax cuts to the people of this country if he will not tell the country where those spending cuts will be made.
The right hon. Gentleman said that he supports some of our measures on pensions, but let us remember that Conservative policy is to abolish not only the winter allowance and the free television licence, which is now going out to several million pensioners, but the Christmas bonus. In 1987, when the shadow Chancellor was the Minister responsible for the Christmas bonus, he said: "Pensioners budgeting for Christmas need the assurance of that contribution to their expenses which this payment provides. The bonus is something to which the majority of the elderly look forward very much. What other people call fringe benefits are of substantial help to the poorest groups in our society."
I thought that Christmas was a time for giving but, under the Conservatives, it would be a time for taking. I can imagine the Conservative pledge card during the election campaign. It would say: "Abolish the new deal. Abolish the working families tax credit. Abolish free television licences. Abolish the winter allowance. And abolish the pensioners' Christmas bonus." The Conservatives would abolish good will for Christmas.
When the shadow Chancellor moved on to the question of the economy, I began to see the wisdom of the words of Lady Thatcher, who said, only a few days ago: "He"—that is, Portillo—"has become very confused. He no longer understands his beliefs." On 18 September, the shadow Chancellor was asked about the effect of public spending commitments on the economy, although today he has not lived up to his promise. He said, "We have to show how all the sums would add up. We have to make sure we have a coherent programme for reducing taxes—how we would save the money necessary to reduce taxes. We want to present that in detail and show how it all adds up together." Today, what did we hear from him? No specifics, no detail, no promises—not even an analysis.
When the shadow Chancellor imagines that he can go into the general election and promise tax cuts year after year on the basis of a year or two's surplus, he is making exactly the mistake—the fatal flaw—that the Conservatives made during the 1980s. His economic policies would return us to stop-go boom-bust. There were four fatal flaws in the Conservative policies of the 1980s, each of which are also flaws in his approach. There are no fiscal rules, so there is
332
no budget discipline. He has given us no indication of the rules that he would follow, which is what produced traditional Tory boom and bust.
The shadow Chancellor told us that he would have tax cuts instead of investment, but the neglect of investment produced the problems in our supply side that meant that we could not sustain a consumer boom because there had been no investment during the 1980s. He has no inflation target—not even our symmetrical inflation target—and he even doubts whether he would keep the Bank of England independent if, as he put it, he could judge it to be incompetent. Most people have that view of him and his economic policies. In all those areas, the Conservative party's economic policy, by its sheer recklessness and irresponsibility, points to the fact that it has learned nothing and forgotten nothing. The Conservatives are ready to take this country back to boom and bust.
Who said that the Conservatives had made a mess during the 1980s? It was none other than the shadow Chancellor himself, who said, "Of course the Conservative party should be apologetic for mismanaging the economy."
The economy's growth rate is higher than under the Conservatives. We are tackling the productivity gap and this country's under-investment, and we are getting people back to work. We will not allow the new deal to be abolished, as the Conservatives plan to do. They have no policies for the economy's future. Their party would take this country back to boom and bust. Sixteen billion pounds of spending cuts and a return to boom and bust: the choice for this country has never been clearer.
Mr. Giles Radice: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Treasury Committee will want to question him in detail about the pre-Budget report? From what my right hon. Friend said this afternoon, it is clear that he has managed to combine very welcome increases in pensions with well-targeted help on fuel and sustained investment in education and health, and that he has done that without putting at risk the great prize that we have achieved of economic stability. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that he will maintain fiscal discipline and that he will not put any strain on Britain's very successful monetary policy?
Mr. Brown: I accept what my right hon. Friend said. He is Chairman of the Treasury Committee and I look forward to discussing these matters with him. Of course, the balance between monetary and fiscal policy decides the strength and growth rate of the economy. As the figures show today, we are running a surplus, repaying £28 billion of debt, and the fiscal stance is tighter or as tight in every year for the next few years, as set out in the Budget.
Of course, the Bank of England must make its own monetary policy decisions, and I look forward to hearing what it says when it makes the decisions tomorrow. The important thing is that by combining a tough fiscal policy with an independent monetary policy, we have moved this country from a permanent relapse in every cycle into boom and bust to a cycle that is capable of greater stability. I hope that even Conservative Back-Bench Members support what we have done to strengthen monetary policy in this country—as some do, I believe.
Mr. Matthew Taylor: Hon. Members may have noticed that today's statement was

333
not so much a pre-Budget consultation as a mini-Budget in its own right. The Chancellor's Labour predecessors introduced mini-Budgets in times of financial crisis precisely because of boom and bust, whereas the right hon. Gentleman introduces them at times of political crisis to bring in policies of bust and boom. Three years of cuts in public service are followed by a general election splurge to buy back the electorate.
The iron Chancellor has buckled in the face of protests from pensioners, Liberal Democrat Members and, indeed, some Labour Back Benchers, who said that he was wrong. The shadow Chancellor is wrong to ask for an apology for the fuel tax increases that his own party introduced. He should have asked for an apology for the measly mean-minded 75p on pensions that the Chancellor introduced only a matter of months ago. Today, the Chancellor has effectively had to admit that he was wrong to do that.
The Chancellor has left even more pensioners reduced to having to claim on the means test. For all the real pension increases that he announced today, which we welcome, he will leave millions of pensioners to the indignity of means tests. His so-called transitional announcement amounts to two years in which pensioners will get above-inflation pension increases only to go back to 75p inflation-based increases thereafter. That is the reality of the policy announced today, which is a policy of more means tests. Do not pensioners need real investment in long-term pension increases?
On fuel, the Chancellor must be aware that the policies that he introduced today are, lock, stock and barrel, those that we have been urging on him and his Conservative predecessors for nearly eight years. We have to wonder why those changes are coming now that the Chancellor faces a general election and fuel protests, rather than as part of a long-term strategy. He is not an iron Chancellor, but a Chancellor who buckles in the face of politics. That is no wonder, as the real hat that he is wearing today is the hat of the chairman of Labour's general election campaign.
Of course, some of the measures for business are welcome, but it is odd that there is total silence on the one issue that is really causing a crisis in British manufacturing and British farming—the high level of the pound. There was not a policy or a promise to help either of them.
Even after all the hype about this pre-Budget report—which was announced to the press 72 hours in advance and rolled out in the House of Commons as an afterthought—the Chancellor will still have spent in this Parliament less of the national cake on education and health than the Conservatives did, and will leave more pensioners reduced to the indignity of the means test. He has not had the guts to admit that his policy on pensions was wrong. Even today when he reversed it, he did not have the guts to apologise.
Mr. Brown: I do not know where the Liberal Democrat spokesman stands. He accuses me of buckling under pressure, including pressure from him, by giving away too much, and ends up telling me that I am giving away too little. He will have to work out what his position is on these matters. No doubt his position in one part of the country will be for more, and in another part it will be for less, as is usual with the Liberal Democrats.
334
On the specific issue of pensions, the Liberal Democrat spokesman—the champion of pensions—should remind himself of what he and his party said at the general election.
Mr. Taylor: That was the last century.
Mr. Brown: That is right: the Liberal Democrats are living in the last century. Their 1997 manifesto said that the basic state pension would remain indexed to prices. The hon. Gentleman should congratulate us on what we have done, rather than condemn us.
As for our adopting Liberal Democrat policies, one which we have not adopted, and about which I do not hear him talking much when he speaks every week on economic matters, is the road fuel duty escalator of 8 per cent. a year in real terms. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. Presumably that is a policy for inner-city areas only, not for rural areas.
Having heard the Liberal Democrat spokesman today, I suggest that he works out whether he thinks we have given too much or too little, because he cannot make up his mind.
Mr. Peter Kilfoyle: Earlier, I asked whether there was a doctor in the House, because I have never seen so many sick people as I saw on the Opposition Benches this afternoon while my right hon. Friend was speaking.
Will my right hon. Friend accept that from my political perspective this has been a welcome statement? Its implications for different parts of the country and different parts of the economy are far-reaching. It is innovative, and I applaud it. Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that, given the extraordinary statement from the shadow Chancellor, the choice facing the country has now been set? It is between investment in economic, social and human capital as set out in my right hon. Friend's statement, and the £16 billion of unspecified cuts proposed by the Conservative party.
Mr. Brown: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. I know that he will welcome the measures we are taking for inner-city development and to create employment throughout the country in areas such as Liverpool. He is absolutely right that the country faces a choice between investing in our future or returning to the old stop-go, boom-bust of the past. Until the Conservative party, and the shadow Chancellor in particular, tell us where their proposed cuts will fall, the right hon. Gentleman will have no credibility either in arguing for tax cuts or in arguing that his is a coherent economic policy.
I remind the shadow Chancellor what the Leader of the Opposition said a few days ago—on the Jimmy Young show, of all radio programmes: "I have to present a coherent programme for government. It is my job to provide the country with an alternative government, not to ride around on whatever bandwagon from time to time. It is my job to present an alternative government, and that means we have to put forward a coherent programme." We are waiting for that coherent programme.
Mr. Kenneth Clarke: It gives me and others pleasure to hear the Chancellor continuing to use the language that he took over from the previous

335
Government of "no return to boom and bust" and "stability." However, will he stop using it? He presents two Budgets a year, when he comes along in response to the latest events to ensure that no lobby group is left unsatisfied, that no pressure group is unpaid and, on this occasion, that Barbara Castle and the hauliers are allowed their triumph—all in the hope that he gets re-elected. Will he confirm that the only reason why he can reconcile all that with his previous fiscal forecasts and his estimate that debt-GDP ratios would go down to levels that we have not seen since the boom phase of the late 1980s is that he and the Treasury keep getting wrong their forecasts of the revenue that they are receiving? Will he repeat his warning to the House that those revenue forecasts can change rapidly—overnight—and lead to very great disappointment?
Will the Chancellor take a little look beyond his hopes of being re-elected at the next general election and accept that—after three years in which he has increased the tax burden and reduced public spending to the lowest percentage of GDP since the 1960s—he has embarked on tax-raising potential and spending programmes that will far exceed any likely growth of the economy? Why will he not admit that that is unsustainable, and that a new Government will have to go back to the drawing board to recover those very qualities of prudent management that he sometimes affects to scorn even in the Government whom he succeeded?
Mr. Brown: I am always interested to hear the former Chancellor, usually because he is in total disagreement with the current shadow Chancellor about the way forward. As for the statements made to the House in the course of a year, it was the previous Government who—because of protests that people made quite rightly, and defeat in Parliament—had to come to the House and rewrite all their legislation on VAT on fuel. Therefore, he is not the one to comment on our introducing proposals over the course of a year.
I should have thought that, on his general point on economic management, the former Chancellor would have been in agreement with me that the stop-go policies of the 1980s were not the right policies for the British economy. I remember—I wish that I had brought the quotes with me—his own criticisms of those policies. As he himself has admitted, in those times, excessive tax cuts were made in one year that could not be afforded in every year. There was also a neglect of investment in the supply side, so that, as the economy grew, we could not sustain the growth that we wanted.
Equally, the former Chancellor, as a supporter of independence of the Bank of England, knows that the lack of a tough and tight monetary policy that is absolutely explicit about where we are trying to go is another recipe for a return to the situation that we had in the 1980s.
I believe that, on those three matters, the former Chancellor and I would share common ground—if it were not for the fact that he also thinks he is preparing for a general election.
Hazel Blears: I congratulate the Chancellor on the measures that he has announced today. His measures will help to bring long-term prosperity to
336
inner-city areas, which is in marked contrast to the years and years of dereliction caused by Tory policies. I also know that my right hon. Friend believes, as I do, that the future for inner cities lies in enterprise, not welfare, and in getting local people involved in their own companies, thereby bringing life to our inner-city areas.
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the measures—all those incentives—that he has announced to encourage business, research and development and enterprise will be targeted particularly at some of our poorest and most deprived communities, to encourage them to share in the prosperity that is available to the rest of the people in Britain?
Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I applaud the work that she does in securing regeneration in her own constituency and in the areas surrounding it. It is very important to recognise that the combination of public spending and targeted tax incentives will be necessary for the regeneration of areas which for too long have been left behind, and for people and places that have been too long forgotten. It is not only the measures that I have announced today but the measures that were announced in the public spending review that will give additional money to some of the hardest hit areas, so that they can meet higher standards in education, create more business development and, consequently, create more employment.
I believe that the challenge for the Government—having cut unemployment in the past few years and increased the numbers of people in employment by 1 million—is to go further. In every area of this country where there is still unemployment that is avoidable, we want with our measures to take the action that is necessary so that full employment becomes a reality for every region of this country.
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I generally welcome the Chancellor's statement, but should like to deal with a couple of matters. First, I urge him not to get too rigidly locked into the perpetual surplus to which he referred, as there may be times in the economic cycle when he needs to be free of such a commitment.
Secondly, a moment ago, the Chancellor mentioned regional policy. Will he clarify whether there will be consideration of operating aids—particularly within objective areas such as Wales, Merseyside, South Yorkshire and Cornwall—to help secure inward investment into those areas? Will he also give an assurance that that package will be helpful for people in work but on low incomes, to increase GDP per head, which is a real challenge in so many areas?
Mr. Brown: Only a few weeks ago, I had the privilege of visiting Wales and talking both to the Welsh Pensioners organisation—I had a very interesting and constructive meeting with its members—and at a seminar of entrepreneurs and local authority leaders who were planning the next stages of the development of objective 1 projects. I consider that both the enthusiasm and the determination to make the projects work stands Wales in good stead for the future, and we want to back them up in whatever ways we can.
Extra money is available for the new deal in areas where unemployment is still high. The working families tax credit is the main means by which we can make

337
work pay—as the right hon. Gentleman is asking us to do—in a part of Wales in which, in the past, a large number of people have been either on the minimum wage or just above it. The working families tax credit is specifically designed to make work pay.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the level of regional development incentives provided by both the British Government and the European Union. We will do what we can to ensure that regional development in every part of the country can move ahead. The fact that the regional development agencies are today being given new powers and new flexibilities is a measure of that—and, of course, they were given new money in the July spending review. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, Wales was given a 5.4 per cent. real-terms increase in expenditure, not least to meet the needs of objective 1 areas.
Mr. Barry Jones: After 18 years of Conservative Governments, this was a report worth waiting for. It used the language of social justice, and it also shot a good many Tory foxes.
I particularly welcome my right hon. Friend's ingenious approaches to the pensioner, the haulier and the farmer. In Deeside and throughout Wales, the increase in the basic state pension will be widely welcomed as a measure of social justice. May I say that we want the right hon. Gentleman to say loudly throughout the land that there is a choice between this report and £16 billion worth of cuts in public services?
Mr. Brown: I entirely accept what my right hon. Friend says. I know that he is a long-standing fighter for the needs of the pensioner community, as well as for the industrial needs of his constituency.
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right: the country will face a choice—the choice whether to invest in the future, or return to the stop-go of the past. The choice is whether we are prepared to make money available to expand our public services and help pensioners, or whether we are to return to a Conservative agenda that would cut a massive £16 billion from our public services.
The shadow Chancellor himself admits that that is the record of the Conservative party—a record that he is having to defend. As he said in his lecture to the Tory party conference in October 1997 that Tories were linked to harshness, thought to be uncaring about unemployment, poverty, poor housing, discipline and single parenthood and that they were thought to favour greed and the unqualified pursuit of the free market, with a devil take the hindmost attitude, I do not need to add any more to those remarks about the Conservative party.
Mr. John Townend: Given the amount of the taxpayer's money that the Chancellor has had in his election war chest, does he accept that motorists in my constituency who must have cars to get to work, take the children to school and go shopping will be very disappointed by the parsimonious reduction of only 2p per litre? Will he confirm that the extra cost of sulphur-free petrol is 1 p a litre? Will he also confirm that he has put up the price of petrol by 15p per litre since he went into No. 11, and that, despite the latest reduction, our tax on petrol will still be the highest in the European Union? The right hon. Gentleman has proved today that he is an anti-motorist Chancellor in an anti-motorist Government.
Mr. Brown: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman heard the shadow Chancellor say that we had been far too
338
generous. It is difficult to know what the Conservative party's position on these matters now is. Perhaps the Conservatives should call another meeting of the No Turning Back group, and try to reach a conclusion on whether they can agree on anything nowadays.
I have been following the hon. Gentleman's comments with considerable interest. It was he who said in the House two years ago, after that pre-Budget statement,
I believe that, in the United Kingdom, despite the Chancellor's optimism about growth next year, we face recession—[Official Report, 4 November 1998; Vol. 318, c. 913.]
I will think twice about whether to listen to all the advice that I receive from the hon. Gentleman in the future.
As for the cost of travel, I believe that motorists in the hon. Gentleman's constituency and throughout the country will welcome the fact that, while we are maintaining a very tough fiscal discipline—indeed, we are repaying £28 billion of debt this year, and have reduced the debt ratio to 30 per cent.—we are still able to help the transport and haulage industries. I wish that the hon. Gentleman had welcomed the justice for pensioners from which thousands of his constituents will also benefit, despite his failure to advocate their case.
Mr. Derek Twigg: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement today. Constituencies such as mine were ignored by the previous Tory Government, but it is clear that they will benefit from today's further redistribution of wealth, which will devote more resources to those who need it most.
Pensioners in my constituency accept that this Government have done more than the Tories, but they expect more from us because we are Labour. They have got more today, which is why I welcome the statement.
Land in my area suffers badly from chemical contamination. My constituents will welcome the acceleration in tax relief that my right hon. Friend announced today. When he talks to my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, will the Chancellor ensure that areas where there is chemical contamination of land get priority in that respect?
Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend describes the measures that he would like my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and me to take up, and we will certainly examine what he proposes. We welcome what he says about the urban regeneration measures. I believe that we are tackling the problem in a way that will bring results.
I also welcome what my hon. Friend said about pensioners in his constituency. Our aim is to ensure that every pensioner shares in this country's rising standard of living. We know that the world has changed over the past 50 years, and that different groups of pensioners have different needs. We will raise the basic pension by £5 a week from April next year and by £3 a week the year after, and we also intend to raise the winter allowance. Our new proposals are very important, as they will do more than a restoration of the earnings link would do for those pensioners who need the help most and whose savings must be rewarded.
I hope that my hon. Friend will join me in getting that message across to the country.
Mr. Quentin Davies: Does the Chancellor believe that he has managed to abolish the

339
trade cycle somehow? If not, what would happen if a recession occurred while the right hon. Gentleman was still Chancellor? Would he carry on with his supposedly immutable spending plans and run into uncontrollable debt, or would he have to introduce no doubt very massive tax cuts?
Mr. Brown: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I understand that he is an Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, but his line seems completely different from that expressed by the Leader of the Opposition yesterday morning. The right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) said that there was more money around and that the Government should be spending it. He also said that today's announcement would not do enough, but today the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) says that we have done too much. The Opposition really must decide what their position is.
Mr. Davies: Answer the question
Mr. Brown: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman heard me say that we had taken action, and that our surpluses and fiscal disciplines had left this Government better prepared than others in the past for the ups and downs of the economic cycle.
Of course economic cycles occur—growth is higher in some years than in others. However, we must avoid the mistakes by those members of the Conservative party who were in charge of macro-economic policy in the 1980s. They pushed the country into a violent recession in the early 1990s, when growth collapsed, because they had not invested. The previous Conservative Government made tax cuts that they could not afford, and they had no monetary or fiscal discipline.
The hon. Gentleman supported the independence of the Bank of England long before Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen even considered doing so. I hope that he, like the former Chancellor, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), will recognise that the Government have brought a monetary and fiscal discipline to the conduct of economic policy that did not exist in the 1980s. Because that discipline did not exist then, the country suffered from the policies of boom and bust that I have described. The hon. Gentleman supports the independence of the Bank of England: he should also support the Government's fiscal rules.
Mr. Stuart Bell: As Second Church Estates Commissioner, and on behalf of the Church, may I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement that VAT on church repairs will be cut from 17.5 per cent. to 5 per cent? I do not want to appear in any way bipartisan, but the campaign to reduce that charge has been all-party and has gone on for 30 years. I welcome the fact that my right hon. Friend is the first Chancellor in 30 years to have listened to the Church's representations.
Will my right hon. Friend devote his energies and endeavours to ensuring that any European Union directive that has to be modified or promoted in respect of the proposal comes into force as soon as possible, so that the VAT payable can be reduced?
Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who does a tremendous amount of work as a Church Commissioner.
340
I applaud the case that he has made for those changes; I know, too, that it is an all-party campaign. We will push the European Commission for a change in policy. We recognise that although churches receive money from the lottery and from other funds, particularly from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, they have bills that must be met, in some cases in areas where they cannot raise money easily from charitable donations. We therefore want to do what we can to help.
It is part of our policy to preserve and advance community life in areas in which there are old buildings that should be kept in existence and undergo the necessary repairs. I have met the Archbishop of Canterbury to talk about these matters and we will continue to talk to the churches. It is our determination that they will have the additional money that is needed.
Rev. Ian Paisley: I welcome many of the things that the Chancellor has said today, especially about pensions. I am sure that pensioners will be well pleased with what they have heard. Of course, pensions are a continuing problem, and I am glad that the Chancellor has gazed into the future.
People in Northern Ireland are a bit aggrieved with the Chancellor. They feel that in matters of consultation, other parts of this United Kingdom have been listened to, while our farming community and the freight men did not get direct access to him.
The right hon. Gentleman has been on wheels. Northern Ireland is not so very far from his own country—it is just 20 miles over the sea, and there is a very good boat service, as he knows. As he carries out further consultations, will he—even if he cannot come himself—meet a deputation of farmers and freight men? The Chancellor talked about a virtuous circle. The farming community and the freight men in Northern Ireland are in a vicious circle.
Northern Ireland is the only part of this United Kingdom that has a land border with another country in the European Union. The number of men and women who have lost jobs on the border because of the price of petrol is fantastic. All one sees driving along the border is closed filling stations. Of course, the farming community—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but he must understand that other hon. Members wish to speak. I think that the Chancellor has enough to work on.
Rev. Ian Paisley: May I just say in closing, Mr. Speaker, that the farming community and the freight men need the Chancellor's attention?
Mr. Brown: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for putting the case for the farmers and the haulage industry. The pre-Budget consultation will include visits to every part of the United Kingdom. Ministers will be visiting Northern Ireland and will listen to the concerns of farmers and hauliers. My good friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has already invited me to come across to Northern Ireland to talk about some of those matters.
Ms Oona King: I thank the Chancellor for the equivalent of a cut of 4p per litre of fuel for drivers of smaller cars, such as myself, through the car tax discount of £55.

341
On pensions, is not the shadow Chancellor correct on one point, but one point only? Pensioners will not forget what the Government have done, because the Government have increased their incomes, particularly for the poorest and those with modest occupational pensions and savings.
Many pensioners in my constituency have asked me about the winter fuel allowance of £200. Can my right hon. Friend let them know the latest date by which pensioners in Tower Hamlets and across the country will have that cheque for £200 in their pockets?
Mr. Brown: The cheques will start going out on Monday. The intention is that they will be paid over November and reach people before Christmas. That is what we are trying to achieve.
On the general policy on pensions, I should have thought that there would have been all-party support for the view that, first, we should tackle pensioner poverty. By raising the minimum income guarantee, we are taking hundreds of thousands of pensioners out of poverty. Just as we want to make child poverty a thing of the past, we want to make pensioner poverty a thing of the past. That is possible through the actions that we take.
I recognise, however—and this is the second stage of our reforms—that we must help people who have saved all their lives and who get nothing from the system. It is all very well the shadow Chancellor criticising measures that he says are income related. Those are measures that encourage and reward saving—they tell people who have saved all their lives that we will do more to help them.
When people consider the proposals and look at the scale of the payments that can now be made, they will realise that the pensioner credit is a means by which we can give justice to middle and lower income pensioners and at the same time tackle the problem of pensioner poverty.
I hope that my hon. Friend's constituents will get the cheques that will start to go out from Monday. Equally, I hope that they will support our new pension reform proposals.
Mr. David Prior: Can the Chancellor of the Exchequer explain why he has so little trust in pensioners to spend their own money? Why cannot the winter fuel allowance, the Christmas bonus and the free television licence fee be incorporated into the basic state pension?
Mr. Brown: First, the £200 winter allowance, which I assume that the Conservative party would not pay—[Interruption.] That is an interesting revelation. We have now had an admission that, even this year, the Conservative party would not pay the winter fuel allowance—even before the Conservatives get into power, they say that they would not pay it this year. I am sorry that attendance in the Chamber is low at the moment, but hon. Members here will note, as will everyone throughout the country in the next few days, that the Conservatives would not even pay this year's £200 winter allowance.
As for telling pensioners how to spend their money, we are giving pensioners that money to spend. The difference between the two parties is that the Conservatives would not even give pensioners the money.
Mr. Martin O'Neill: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement, in particular on what he
342
intends to do about vehicle excise duty. The rural poor, who drive on average perhaps 8,000 miles a year, will benefit far more from a £55 cut in that duty than they would have benefited if he had simply cut the price of petrol. We are doing the right thing—enabling people to pay as they go when they drive. We are cutting the cost to drivers of getting on the road. That will help the poorest people and it will allow the rural poor in particular to drive as they need to do. Many of them have limited needs, which we should not exaggerate—they need their cars, but not for long journeys, and not on the scale that they would need them if petrol tax were cut as dramatically as some people have advocated, which the country could not have afforded and which would have denied money for schools, pensioners and other things.
Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend is the Chairman of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry and has been taking evidence on the matter. I know how vigilant he is when he represents the needs of his rural as well as his urban constituents. The important point is that for the past 20 years those in rural areas have been calling for tax on the ownership of a car to be less and saying that people should not have to pay such a high licence fee. Now that the new lower fee has been extended to cover vehicles up the cc scale to 1500 cc people have a real choice as to whether to pay the lower fee.
Our policy was based, first, on getting rid of the deficit, secondly, on ending the under-investment in transport and, thirdly, on doing nothing to hurt stability. Our fourth and fifth objectives were to meet the environmental needs that we have set down and to tax ownership less and treat motorists more fairly. Taken as a whole, the measures today achieve those aims.
Mr. William Ross: The Chancellor will no doubt be delighted to hear that I agree with his strictures on spending temporary surpluses as though they were permanent features. I welcome the fact that he is spending at least part of the temporary surplus on repaying public debt and I hope that he will continue with that course until the public deficit is eventually eliminated. Does he agree that the fatal flaw of the Conservative party when in government was not that it undertook that course of action but that it entered the exchange rate mechanism? Those of us who objected to that policy object equally to any possibility of our entering the single currency.
That said, the measures that the Chancellor announced on the cost of fuel will go nowhere near meeting the real problems alluded to by the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) in respect of the border with the Irish Republic, where filling stations and many other businesses have suffered grievously. Much more will have to be done. Will the Chancellor give an undertaking that he will pay serious attention to that problem, and that the bill imposed on foreign lorries will also apply to hauliers from the Irish Republic?
Mr. Brown: We continue to investigate cross-border flows of petrol and diesel. Customs and Excise has been concerned about that and we shall keep it under review.
I shall not be drawn into a debate on the single currency, but simply repeat that our policy is—as it has always been—that in principle we see benefits in the single currency; in practice, the tests that we have set must be met.

343
As for the Conservatives learning the lessons of the past, one sees total opportunism from them; every time we make a spending announcement, they say that it will cause a recession, but when it fails to do so, they ask—on the day before the announcement—for huge sums of money to be spent. They have shown complete opportunism in this effort too. Neither Front-Bench nor Back-Bench Conservative Members have a clue as to what the Conservative policy or attitude is. They were certainly no wiser after hearing the shadow Chancellor.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Chancellor aware that it is a pleasure to hear a Labour Chancellor setting out a long-term policy that will show, at the general election, that for the first time there will be fewer people on the dole under a Labour Government than when they came into office? That policy means that we are planning to spend money—unlike the miserable years of 1978–79, when a Labour Government cut public expenditure.
As my right hon. Friend is probably aware, last week I called for money for jobs in the regions and a big chunk of money for the pensioners. It would be churlish of me not to say thank you. We have a listening Government—especially to me. The Tories should be more inclusive; they should thank the Chancellor too, because he has reduced the tax on the Leader of the Opposition's flat-back lorry.
Mr. Brown: I think that the Leader of the Opposition has got rid of his lorry; he does not seem to be going about the country as much as he did in the past. [Horn. MEMBERS: "It has broken down".] It has broken down—like his party's policy.
My hon. Friend referred to jobs. We have created 1 million jobs, but that is not enough. We must do better and we will do more. We can help many people back into work through the new measures under the new deal that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment is pushing forward.
My hon. Friend has been a champion of pensioners over the years—especially in putting their case to me and to others. He thanks us for our efforts for pensioners; we should recognise that he has been a champion of their case. He says that he likes to support Labour Chancellors; I shall report that remark to one of our colleagues in the House of Lords.
Mr. John Redwood: The Chancellor has been bruised and battered by the haulage industry and by the protests calling for fuel tax cuts. Now that he is the U-turn Chancellor, will he make a further U-turn to abolish the hated IR35 in order to help the high-tech industry? Will he do a U-turn to help home owners by cutting stamp duties that he raised much too far? Will he apologise to pensioners for the big increase in taxes on them? Is it not true that, even after the statement, he is still the rip-off Chancellor in a rip-off Government?
Mr. Brown: Here it is: the shadow Chancellor saying that there should be a bit of prudence from the Conservative party and then someone who would like to be shadow Chancellor—perhaps he would like to be the
344
party leader—saying that we should lose lots of tax revenue from IR35 and other measures. I do not know what the policy of the Conservative party is.
The right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) is still a member of the No Turning Back group, so he is fighting his corner for the right-wing cause. He has always said that public spending increases would cause a recession; the only problem is that he is wrong.
Mr. Ian Pearson: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement? In particular, I welcome his comments on manufacturing and the proposals for the abolition of the withholding tax, the introduction of intellectual property and goodwill relief and for small business VAT simplification. I am sure that they are all measures that will be welcomed by industry.
Will my right hon. Friend tell us whether the stamp duty exemption in deprived areas will apply to all property types and not just residential ones? Will he consider extending the VAT reduced rate for churches to other types of property in deprived areas? Why do we have to wait until 2003 for the pensioners credit?
Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend has asked many questions. Detailed proposals are being published today for consultation, and I hope that he will join that consultation. He has been a great promoter of economic development in his region and he has had ideas that the Government have accepted in some cases because they were excellent proposals for industrial regeneration throughout the whole country. I ask him to examine in detail the proposal for stamp duty relief, which is worth about £120 million for industrial regeneration.
On VAT on churches, we are considering the matter of public buildings as a whole. On my hon. Friend's question about 2003, the pension arrangements will give a rise above inflation in basic pensions for the next two years. When we introduce the system in April 2003, we will get it right so that tax and benefit integration move forward. That is why the system will be introduced in 2003.
On my hon. Friend's general point about industry, I forgot to remind the House that the one of the last statements made from the Front Bench by the right hon. Member for Wokingham, the former Secretary of State for Wales was, "The Government are losing control of the economy." Once again, the right hon. Gentleman got it wrong.
Mr. John Bercow: Given that 99.6 per cent. of British businesses employ fewer than 100 people, that they account for 57 per cent. of the private sector work force and that they generate approximately two fifths of our national output, why is the Chancellor so proud of the fact that he has done nothing whatsoever today to reverse the tide of regulation which, thanks to him, is now deeper and more hazardous than any that British companies have ever faced?
Mr. Brown: First, we have taken measures to help small businesses. The hon. Gentleman has obviously not looked at the detailed documents or obtained them from

345
the Library, which is not out of character for him when he asks a question in the House. He should look at the documents and he will find—
Mr. Bercow: I have studied them.
Mr. Brown: Oh, the hon. Gentleman has studied the documents. Well, there is a VAT simplification scheme and it affects up to 50,000 businesses. We have cut small business tax, and he should recognise that fact.
As for the burden on business, the VAT scheme is a deregulation scheme; it is designed to simplify the system. I also remind him that the shadow Chancellor said of the Conservative party's record on regulation, "We were rather notable regulators. We passed volumes of new rules and laws, interfering with almost every aspect of business and social life." Perhaps, many of the hon. Gentleman's complaints are directed on this, as on other issues, to those sitting on the Opposition Front Bench.
Mr. Robert Sheldon: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his careful management of the economy over the past three years has produced the brightest economic prospects for more than a generation? Will he make sure that his prudence with a purpose will now move a little more towards the purpose that he had in mind and, in particular, towards the investment and productivity that I know that he has very much at heart? They are important for the long-term future of his plans, which I hope to see realised.
Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. He was a Minister in a previous Labour Government and is always a strong defender of manufacturing industry. His speeches on the economy are always listened to by the House.
I agree that productivity is the central issue that we must address with work forces and managements. In many sectors, the issue is not what Government can do, but how management and work forces can tackle together the problems in skills and restrictive practices that they must address and how they deal with the areas in which new
346
technology must be introduced. However, as I said to the TUC and the CBI, to whom I have spoken in the past two months, we must continue to address such problems. I believe that over the next few months, my right hon. Friend will see a number of initiatives in skills, benchmarking, management training and the introduction of new technology. A great deal more work is being done so that we can rival the world's best.
Mr. John Wilkinson: Was it political prudence or his economic judgment that led the Chancellor not once to mention the euro in his original statement? Was it because the economy is doing much better outside the eurozone than it could ever do within it, or is it perhaps because he was frightened that the voters would be scandalised were he to admit that he is wasting inordinate sums of public money on the changeover plan to the euro when, for example, my constituents have to endure interminable delays on the tube, and face the closure of the premier heart hospital in the United Kingdom, Harefield?
Mr. Brown: In that case the hon. Gentleman will be pleased that I talked in my statement about the health service, transport and all the other issues that relate to public services. Only the hon. Gentleman thinks that every debate in the House of Commons must be about the euro. Today we are debating public services and the pre-Budget statement.
As for European measures, I made a number of proposals for European economic reform to Finance Ministers this week. We published our updated report on euro preparations, and we will continue to pursue the policy of prepare and decide. The hon. Gentleman must make up his mind whether he agrees with the official policy of the Conservative party, which is not to be against the euro in principle, or whether he will hold to his own position, which is always to be against it, under all circumstances. He will find, of course, that the shadow Chancellor has not made up his mind on that either.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Unfortunately, we must move on.

Lifelong Learning (Paid Study Time)
5.26 pm
Mr. David Chaytor: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish an entitlement to a national minimum time allowance for training and educational purposes for people in employment.
It is particularly appropriate, in view of the report published a few days ago by the National Advisory Council for Education and Training Targets, that I have the opportunity to present my Bill. The report paints an interesting picture of the level of skills in the United Kingdom and, in particular, compares them with the skills of our major competitor countries. In light of the Chancellor's pre-Budget statement and the emphasis that he placed on raising productivity levels in British industry, it is relevant that my small Bill contains a proposal that would take a small but significant step towards achieving those higher levels.
During the past three years, the Government have significantly improved post-16 education and training in the UK. No Government in my lifetime—or, I would argue, this century—have put as much emphasis on the importance of post-16 education and training, lifelong learning, vocational training and retraining, as the current one. Following the important commissioning of the reports by Professor Fryer and Baroness Kennedy; the publication of the Green Paper "The Learning Age" and the White Paper "Learning to Succeed"; the measures contained in the Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998, which restored the important right of young workers to have day release once a week; and, more recently, the Learning and Skills Bill, which consolidates the multifarious streams of funding for post-16 education and training, we now have a framework for the delivery of lifelong learning that we have never had before. The two major colleges in my constituency have certainly benefited from the record investment that is being put into further education and vocational training.
However, in welcoming the importance that is now being attached to lifelong learning and the new investment in it, we must not underestimate the scale of the problem of a work force who are significantly less well trained and well qualified than our major competitors. That is why our productivity levels compare poorly with those of France, Germany, Japan, the United States and, indeed, many south-east Asian countries, and why we cannot shake off the problem of skills gaps and skills shortages.
The recent report by Sir Claus Moser suggested that 20 per cent. of the adult work force in the UK have serious literacy and numeracy problems. In Britain, fewer than half of all adult workers have qualified at national vocational qualification level 3 or above. In Germany, it is almost two thirds. In Britain, one quarter of workers do not have a single level 2 qualification. Let me clarify: that does not mean a full NVQ level 2, or five GCSEs at grades A to C; it means a single component of those level 2 qualifications—a single GCSE or a single NVQ2 module. Among older workers, the problem is more serious: one fifth of workers aged more than 50 have no formal qualifications at all and almost two fifths do not have a single qualification at level 2.
We must avoid the tendency to assume that those without specific job qualifications or general educational qualifications are inadequate in their jobs. However,
348
the reality is that the rapidly changing labour market brought about by the impact of new technology and globalisation means that the number of people without formal qualifications and the number of jobs available requiring only very low-level skills are diminishing day by day. Therefore, the skills level of the labour force is not only an issue of productivity and competitiveness, but one of economic survival for the unskilled and their families. I would argue that a national minimum entitlement to training will, in time, be seen to be of equal importance to the national minimum wage.
The problem in Britain is not necessarily that we do not invest enough in vocational education, but that we do not get the best return for the money that we do invest. The most recent survey indicated that British industry provided 49 million days of training annually, at a cost of more than £10 billion. However, the distribution of that training is heavily skewed in two directions. First, larger firms are understandably better than smaller ones: the skill needs in Britain survey showed that more than 90 per cent. of firms with more than 200 employees provided on-the-job training, whereas only 20 per cent. of firms with fewer than 25 employees did so.
Secondly, the lion's share of training is taken by graduates and equivalent professionals. The recent labour force survey showed that almost 20 per cent. of those with level 4 qualifications had benefited from training within the previous four weeks, compared with little more than 5 per cent. of workers classified as "operatives". Therefore, those unskilled and semi-skilled workers who, as schoolchildren, were victims of a divisive and selective system of education find that, in the workplace, they are still at a disadvantage in terms of the training opportunities available. Training opportunities tend to be allocated to the cause of increasing the skills of those who already have higher levels of skill, at the expense of the unskilled and semi-skilled.
Other countries do things differently. Our major competitors realise that, these days, no nation that wants to prosper in the knowledge-driven economy can afford to be so casual or so elitist about the development of technical skills as the United Kingdom has been in the past. Let us remember that British industry invests more than £10 billion in approximately 49 million training days a year—an average of about 2 days for every adult of working age. Yet, despite that average allocation, millions of our workers have no access to training of any sort.
Many of our major competitors ensure that all workers benefit from training opportunities by establishing a national minimum allocation of training hours, or a right to paid leave for training purposes. Such schemes exist in Norway, Netherlands, Sweden, France, Italy, Belgium and Greece. In the United Kingdom, where 20 per cent. of adult workers struggle with basic literacy and numeracy and there are fewer than two thirds the number of workers with higher technical qualifications that there are in Germany, and bearing in mind my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's call for higher productivity in his pre-Budget statement today, there is a powerful argument in favour of introducing a basic entitlement to training for everyone.
Quality and quantity of vocational training in Britain is not a new cause of concern: it was identified as a serious national weakness more than 100 years ago by a royal commission and it has been the subject of continuous debate ever since. The publication of the "Aiming Higher" report by the national advisory council reinforces the

349
message about the gap between skills in Britain and skills in our major competitive countries. Yet structures that had been patiently built up in the post-war period—industrial training boards, day release for young workers and the training levy—were demolished in the 1980s, along with the remnants of the old apprenticeship system. I am proud that the Labour Government are now developing a modern system of vocational training that will significantly increase opportunities for millions of young people in this country.
The thrust of the Government's new initiatives is, to a large extent, focused on expanding the supply of training, but I would argue that the British problem is not primarily a lack of supply, nor a shortage of training in aggregate terms. However, there is a distortion in the demand for training, and a skewed distribution of training that serves to increase the skill of the already skilled and to neglect the needs of the unskilled. The longer that happens, the wider our skills gap will be.
If we want seriously to tackle the problems of the low level of skills in British industry, the skills gap and the skills shortages, we must approach the problem from the demand side of the equation. That is why I believe that the establishment of a national training entitlement—building on the success of the national minimum wage—which is expressed in terms of an annual minimum number of hours of paid training time for every individual in employment is the most effective way of ensuring that the opportunities opened up by the Government's massive new investment in lifelong learning will be available to people in all walks of life. There will be vocational training for the many, not only for the few.
The national minimum wage established the right to earn. The national training entitlement would establish the right to learn. I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. David Chaytor, Charlotte Atkins, Mr. Hilary Benn, Mr. John Cryer, Mr. Kelvin Hopkins, Mrs. Alice Mahon, Judy Mallaber, Mr. Gordon Marsden, Mr. Allan Rogers and Ms Debra Shipley.

Lifelong Learning (Paid Study Time)
  LIFELONG LEARNING (PAID STUDY TIME)
  Mr. David Chaytor accordingly presented a Bill to establish an entitlement to a national minimum time allowance for training and educational purposes for people in employment: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 17 November, and to be printed [Bill 178].
Orders of the Day

  Trustee Bill [Lords]
  Not amended in the Standing Committee, considered
  Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's consent, on behalf of the Crown, and Prince of Wales's consent, on behalf of the Duchy of Cornwall, signified].
  5.37 pm
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. David Lock): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  I shall be extremely brief. This is a Law Commission Bill, which has been received with approval by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House. It has been thoroughly debated both here and in another place. It provides for the reform of the law of trust, especially as it relates to the powers of trustees to invest trust funds in default of the inclusion of express powers of investment in the will or trust instrument. In England and Wales, it recommends a range of reforms that is intended to facilitate more effective trust administration in areas including collective delegation by trustees, the use of nominees and custodians, powers of insurance and the remuneration of professional trustees. The Bill has been widely welcomed by the great majority of commentators. Those with reservations have, in the main, wanted the Bill to do more. Few have objected to what it does achieve.
  The Bill will be of substantial benefit to beneficiaries of trusts, including many charitable trusts. As I have said, it has already been debated at length. There was a long debate on Second Reading and extensive consideration in Committee. I commend the Bill without further explanation.
  My noble Friend the Lord Chancellor and I are grateful for the generally constructive atmosphere in which debate on the Bill has been conducted, both here and in another place. In many respects, it has been a model of the way to run uncontroversial Bills, and I hope that it is a model to which we can return where appropriate in future.
  5.39 pm
  Mr. Nick Hawkins: I confirm what the Minister has said about the way in which the Bill has been dealt with. Its passage has been relatively uncontroversial in another place and in Committee, both in the Second Reading Committee and in Standing Committee. However, one or two matters have been raised in another place, and in this place by my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien), who has given his apologies both to me and to the Minister for the fact that he is unable to be in the Chamber this afternoon.
  The Minister will confirm that there was a relatively extensive debate in Standing Committee A on my hon. Friend's amendments in relation to clause 30 dealing with the remuneration of trustees of charitable trusts. My hon. Friend raised concerns that had been raised with him by the Institute of Chartered Secretaries and Administrators, and by others. Those points were similar to those that were raised by several Lords in another place.
  Following Standing Committee A, the Minister wrote at considerable length both to my hon. Friend and to other members of the Committee. I should mention that my

  351
  hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Gamier) has dealt with the matter at all its Commons stages. I declare my interest as a member of the Bar, although I add, as most other Members in both Houses have done, that I have never pretended to be any sort of expert on trust law. However, like, I suspect, the Minister, I had to pass examinations on it as part of my Bar finals. I remember some interesting, arcane points about the Trustee Investments Act 1961, the weaknesses of which the Law Commission has sought to address in putting forward the proposals that led to the legislation.
  I join Lord Kingsland, the shadow Lord Chancellor, in paying tribute, as many other Lords did, to the work of the law commissioner Mr. Harpum, who led the work that led to the Bill. I know that the Minister and the Lord Chancellor have similarly paid tribute to him in debates.
  I return to the Minister's detailed letter, which runs to four and a half pages. We still have a concern, which I would like him to deal with. In his letter, he rejected my hon. Friend's arguments about issues relating to clause 30. It says:
  Some have suggested that any such extension should be a matter for primary legislation. However, it should be noted that it is very difficult to find Parliamentary time for law reform legislation. The Law Commission always has a number of important Reports awaiting implementation and is restricted by the availability of Parliamentary time. As I am sure you—
  meaning my hon. Friend—
  are aware, the pressure on Parliamentary time is such that there is often a considerable time lag between the completion of a project and its eventual implementation by Parliament.
  It goes on to set out the reasons why the Government chose to address the particular issues in the way that they did—by giving powers for secondary legislation.
  The concern that I share with my hon. Friend is that it should have been possible for the Government to accept the thrust of his points in this primary legislation. We have repeatedly pointed out, both in the Chamber and in Committee, our concern that the Government are making a practice of giving themselves many more general powers to enact later delegated legislation. The Bill is perhaps only a small example of that, but given that amendments were tabled in another place by the Government—the Lord Chancellor tabled a number of amendments put forward by the Charity Commission, which were accepted by Members on both sides in another place—we think that there should have been time for the Minister to table amendments to meet my hon. Friend's concerns in the Bill itself. There was no particular time problem. We certainly do not have any particular time problem this evening. We think that, in the four-and-a-half page attempt to justify their position, the Government have got it wrong.
  It is only a small point. We have given a general welcome to the Bill. Nothing that I say this evening should be taken to undermine that general welcome—the Bill is undoubtedly a welcome updating of trust law—but I hope that the Minister will try to give a better answer than he did in the letter.
  We do not think that the Government have finished the job. It is always unsatisfactory when, in a short Bill designed to enact Law Commission proposals, the Government leave a gap. We believe that they have done
  352
  so on this occasion, and that the Minister's reply is inadequate. I speak not just for my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury, but for a number of those outside the House who are specialists in this field of law and who backed my hon. Friend's arguments in Committee and the same arguments when they were put in another place.
  5.45 pm
  Mr. Alan Meale: While the Bill is before the House, I take the opportunity to highlight concerns that have arisen since my recent experience in dealing with trust law, with the help of the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Lock).
  I refer to three trusts centred on my constituency—the F. B. Bailey Thomas charitable fund trust, the F. B. Bailey Thomas provident fund trust, and the F. B. Bailey Thomas personal fund trust. The trusts were set up in 1970 to prevent a situation whereby, under the Mental Health Act 1959, the moneys from the trusts could be lost to the many workers employed at Mansfield Brewery. A considerable sum was involved—for all three trusts, a combined total of many hundreds of millions of pounds.
  Another reason for the establishment of the trusts was to safeguard the independence of the Mansfield Brewery company and the interests, welfare and employment of the many thousands of people who work for the company.
  As my hon. Friend knows, the trusts were run by a gaggle of people who served on all three trusts simultaneously. One of the members on the personal trust acted as the solicitor for all the trusts. The provisions of the trusts contained a rider to the effect that the shares in the brewery should not be sold unless that was in the interests of the beneficiaries, but members of the trusts decided on that while serving on all three trusts at the same time. A contract was awarded for private consultation with one of their own companies. Indeed, a senior trustee on two of the trusts was a senior director at Ernst and Young, which was involved with the trusts.
  That is not a satisfactory situation. Despite all the work done by the Standing Committee, there are still tremendous gaps in trust law—for example, in the case of trustees serving on a number of trusts, all intermixed, and handling matters in which they have pecuniary interests. Conflicts of interest must inevitably arise. Mr. Nagel whom I mentioned as a director of Ernst and Young is an example. Another example is the solicitor who was a trustee and also acted as the solicitor for all three trusts.
  Pecuniary interests were also involved when trustees who held shares in the company saw an opportunity to cash in those shares and took decisions that favoured themselves and their families to the tune of many millions of pounds. The Bill does not cover all those situations, as I have pointed out privately to my hon. Friend.
  I am concerned also about the role of the public trustees. When these matters arose 12 or 14 months ago, I met the public trustees more than once. It seemed that they were intent on only one thing: allowing the sale of the shares on the open market. I pointed out to them that in the case of the provident fund, which was established to protect the welfare of the beneficiaries—people who used to work for Mansfield Brewery or still worked there, numbering about 3,200 in total—not a single one of the beneficiaries wanted the sale of shares to go ahead. Petitions were presented to the Public Trust Office,

  353
  the Minister and the company, showing that no beneficiary wanted any part of their shares sold on because it would put at risk their jobs. Nevertheless, the sale of those shares proceeded.
  Other matters also caused much concern. For instance, of the many hundreds who applied for aid from the provident fund, which held millions of pounds, who had worked in the company for a number of years after 1970, nearly all were denied. They were told firmly by the trustees in charge at that time that the trusts were established not to benefit the beneficiaries, but as a simple mechanism to prevent funds leaving the company, possibly damaging it. That flies in the face of all the evidence and the rules on which such matters were established. Not one case of a collective submission for aid from the company's workers to the trustees has been passed, stretching back many years.
  In many trusts, only about 10 or 20 people, and certainly fewer than 100, are involved. But in this case, more than 3,000 workers were involved, and we are talking not about a few pounds or a few thousand pounds but—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Gentleman because I am conscious that his remarks relate to the Bill, but this is a Third Reading debate and he must talk specifically about the Bill's contents, not what is not in it or what it cannot do.
  Mr. Meale: The Bill does not fully cover the need to protect the beneficiaries of such trusts. As I said, the trusts involve many hundreds of millions of pounds, yet 3,200 beneficiaries can obtain no help. Despite repeated requests for a representative on the board of trustees, that has been denied them.
  Can the Minister give some assurance that some of those 3,200 beneficiaries will be allowed to represent their interests on the board of trustees? The trust was managed in such a way that huge amounts were transferred from the provident to the charitable fund. Interests were clouded, and Mr. Bailey Thomas's personal fund, which had to be transferred on his death, was transferred to the charitable fund not to the provident fund, as it should have been under its remit. Two or three people are now sitting on hundreds of millions of pounds, at least a third of which should be in the rightful ownership of and managed by the beneficiaries of the provident trust, but it is not.
  Will the Minister give some assurance that such situations will not occur in the future? Will he further use his good offices and the Bill to influence the public trustees to examine whether a representative of the beneficiaries could be appointed to protect their interests? Will he use his influence to cause the Public Trust Office, of which he has charge, to change the current public trustee? I can say categorically that, of the 3,200 beneficiaries who have a claim to the beneficiaries' cash, not one has any faith whatever in the person holding that position.
  5.54 pm
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I apologise for not being here at the beginning of the debate, which I knew would come quickly and pass relatively quickly. I propose to make a
  354
  couple of comments, but I am conscious that, like the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins), for today's purposes I am from the substitutes bench. Like the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien), my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) cannot be here, and I give his apologies to the House. He is opening a school in Devon today, which he regarded as something that only he could do, whereas I could easily fill in for him here.
  I also wish to place on record, as my hon. Friend did at an earlier stage, our thanks to our colleagues in the other place, particularly our noble Friend Lord Goodhart, who is an eminent trust lawyer. I did my trust law course at university, and it produced the only memorable quote from any lecture during the whole of my three-year law degree, and that was from Gareth Jones, himself an eminent trust lawyer. The week before our final exams, which were to take place on Ascension day, he said, "Some of you will understand this and some of you will not understand it, and next week some of you will go up and some of you will not go up." Some of us just managed to get up high enough to be able to move on, at least to another degree.
  Trusts, as the Minister said, are perceived by the outside world as being dull, dry, technical, legal and complex, but they are everywhere. I, probably like every other hon. Member, am a trustee of a few small, relatively unimportant trusts. We are all asked to perform that role, either in a family or community context. But trusts are often responsible for huge assets and important issues.
  I thank the Minister, his colleagues, and the Conservative spokesmen for their collaboration and co-operation. The Bill was brought forward as a result of the Law Commission's view that the law needed to be reformed, and it received widespread support throughout both the profession and the professions, and on both sides of the House. Whatever its demerits—Liberal Democrats have not argued that it is a perfect Bill—it improves the law considerably, particularly in the way in which it widens investment powers, which was its main purpose.
  I want to ask the Minister the one question that has remained as a recurrent theme in the speeches, contributions and questions of my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon, and that concerns people in professional capacities, not usually lawyers, although they could be, charging trusts, which have no recourse, at such a level that their funds are seriously depleted. We are all conscious that it is easy for professionals—if I may be so bold to say so, it is often banks and such organisations—to charge considerable amounts of money, because they administer funds and are effectively in control of day-to-day management, unlike in the auditing of accounts for a small local community or organisation, which is done for £400 a year.
  People have often sought a way to challenge professional fees. That is not dealt with here, but it is a recurrent concern. When the Minister replies will he say how the Government envisage remedying that problem? What recourse is there? Do they contemplate either further legislation in the context of trust law, or further legislation in the context of Department of Trade and Industry legislation, which will deal with the regulation of professional bodies and their accountability?
  There are one or two other matters of lesser importance that my hon. Friend raised to which at some stage the House will return, but, consistent with the approaches of

  355
  other hon. Members, it is sufficient at this stage to say that the Bill considerably improves the law and is a good piece of legislation. Society will be better off as a result and we wish it well.
  5.59 pm
  Mr. Alan Hurst: Like others, I propose to speak briefly. First, I declare an interest as a practising solicitor and doubtless a trustee of several small trusts.
  I am spurred to speak by my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale). I am not in a position to speak about the facts relevant to the trusts to which he referred. However, I fully comprehend the difficulties that beneficiaries encounter, especially in cases of clear, blatant and dishonest breach of trust. Such a breach may be a matter for the criminal law, but that does not necessarily help the beneficiary if the money has been made away with and there is nothing left.
  The Bill is to be applauded for introducing a concept of duty of care. I am not sure how much further it goes beyond the obligation on trustees to act in good faith. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) hinted at the difficulty of enforcement when a problem arises. It becomes even greater if the trust is relatively small. In some ways, it is easier when a large sum of money is disputed. The cost of seeking a legal remedy for breach of trust in the case of small sums may outweigh any possible gain.
  If I remember it correctly, the case of Jarndyce v. Jarndyce in "Bleak House" was pursued for decades and ended only when all the trust money was spent on the fees of the competing lawyers. I do not necessarily claim that that is the worst that can happen, but it is not helpful to trustees for moneys to be squandered in that way. I therefore hope that, in due course, my hon. Friend the Minister might be able to consider remedies that would make it easier for beneficiaries to follow up what they perceive as defects in the administration of the trust.
  I should like to consider the way in which to undertake a proper assessment either of the trustees or those whom they employ, as the Bill envisages. In some ways, it is easier if those involved are solicitors. I shall have to consider the matter in more detail, but it may be possible to obtain a remuneration certificate for charges from the Law Society. That facility does not exist when the relevant trustee or agent is not a solicitor, but perhaps a banker. People, who are possibly elderly and in circumstances that worry them, often enter into a trust arrangement with their bank on standard term document clauses. Those clauses carry horrific charges, to which they have already agreed, for remuneration. I referred to that briefly in Committee.
  When a small trust has been entered into, perhaps many years previously under the terms of a will, and the testator dies and the estate is very small, banks are not unknown to renounce probate. They thus abdicate their responsibility for what they took on as a profitable exercise 20 years previously because it is no longer profitable for them. That might be regarded as a breach of trust. It certainly does not constitute acting in good faith, and there is currently little remedy for the beneficiary who suffers the consequences.
  6.3 pm
  Mr. Lock: With the leave of the House, I shall respond to the debate. I am grateful for the welcome that hon. Members of all parties have given the debate. I shall attempt to respond as briefly and succinctly as possible to the various points that hon. Members have made.
  First, let me deal with the points of the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins), and the matters that I set out in detail in a letter to the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien). The Bill contains two separate secondary legislation powers. First, clause 30 includes the power to make regulations for remunerating charitable trustees. That is highly appropriate because the definitions of the circumstances in which some charitable trustees should be remunerated, and adaptations to them, are ideally suited to secondary legislation.
  The main anxiety of the hon. Member for Surrey Heath was about clause 41 and the suggestion of a Henry VIII power to make regulations to overrule trustee investment criteria in local or private Acts. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman simply made a bad point. Schedule 2 amends the Cereals Marketing Act 1965, the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963, the National Heritage Act 1980, the Universities and College Estates Act 1925 and several other measures. They are all the relevant measures that we have been able to find, but a full Lexis search will not reveal every single trust. To hamper the beneficiaries of a trust under a private Act that has not yet been identified with having to wait for primary legislation before doing the good for them that the Bill does for all other trusts is an outrageous proposition, which does not bear consideration.
  I must place on record the way in which my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) has diligently pursued the interests of his constituents in relation to the Mansfield brewery trusts. He has done that relentlessly and is fully aware of the need for the trustees to be accountable to the beneficiaries. The standard investment criteria in clause 4(3) may assist him. Paragraph (b) provides for trustees to bear in mind
  the need for diversification of investments of the trust, in so far as is appropriate to the circumstances of the trust.
  I understand that that is one of the bases on which the public trustee believed that it was necessary to diversify the ownership of assets in the case that we are considering. It is a matter for the public trustee's discretion.
  Jurisdiction over the public trustee is not within my ministerial capacity, but I will draw the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield to the attention of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Jane Kennedy). She is primarily responsible for that aspect of policy, and I am sure that she will write to my hon. Friend in response to his remarks.
  The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) talked about trustees overcharging. That is a serious point, which was made in a responsible fashion in Committee, and I am grateful for the opportunity to return to it. Clause 29 provides that trustees of a trust corporation, not a charitable trust, are entitled to receive reasonable remuneration from the trust. My hon. Friend the Member for Braintree and the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey

  357
  described circumstances in which trustees do not act in the best interests of the trust or of the beneficiaries, but primarily serve the interests of the trustees, as a commercial body. That is not appropriate behaviour by trustees.
  It is now clear that trustees are entitled to charge only reasonable remuneration—the definition of reasonable is not the same for a multi-million pound trust and for a small trust in a will. One would expect proportionality between charges and the assets in an estate. That is incorporated in the Bill. I bear in mind the comments about renouncing trusteeship, but the Bill is a warning to professional trustees that, if they take on a trust, they must ensure that their charges are no more than reasonable. The Bill provides that clarity, and I hope that that is welcome.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Minister clarify for the record that the Bill applies not only prospectively to new trusts that will be established after it is enacted, and to people who become trustees, but to the actions of existing trusts from the day of enactment?
  Mr. Lock: Yes, I am certainly prepared to give that assurance. The Bill contains a set of default powers, which can be overridden by specific provisions in the trust instrument. However, existing trusts will be governed by the Bill because, once it receives Royal Assent, it will apply as much to them as to those that will be created. I hope that that is the assurance that the hon. Gentleman seeks.
  Question put and agreed to
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, without amendment

  BNFL(Public-Private Partnership)
  [Relevant documents: Ninth Report from the Trade and Industry Committee, Session 1999–2000, HC 307, and the Government's response thereto, HC 848.]
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Pope.]
  6.10 pm
  Mr. Martin O'Neill: I am pleased to have this opportunity to debate the report. When my colleagues on the Committee and I started work on this subject in June 1999, we assumed that we would undertake a fairly routine but, given the difficulties that people occasionally have following the arrangements of British Nuclear Fuels, somewhat complex operation. Little did we realise that we would be involved with far more controversial subjects, including safety procedures, the organisation and delivery of data, what might be regarded in some circles as the scandal affecting the organisation—that resulted in the departure of several senior staff and the sacking of a number of people further down the line of command—and the questioning of the organisation's whole character.
  When we started, our remit was—and, indeed, it remains—to consider the suitability or otherwise of the proposed public-private partnership as a way forward for BNFL. That required us to examine the activities and liabilities of the company, which has four main areas of activity: nuclear reprocessing, the fabrication of mixed oxide fuel, the generation of electricity in Magnox stations, and substantial business involvement in the United States, involving waste management, nuclear facilities and nuclear fuel services. Moreover, we had to set alongside those revenue-generating aspects of the business a consideration of the scale, character and reporting of its liabilities.
  To say that we found issues that concerned us in those areas would be an understatement. BNFL is a big company—it employs some 23,000 people who operate in some 15 countries—and in its ranks can be found some of the best qualified nuclear scientists and engineers in the world.
  The report contains an interesting section describing BNFL's background and organisation—a short but interesting history of the British nuclear industry. That may be the first time that such a history has been written in a coherent and easily intelligible form. That section is not recommended bedside reading, although anyone who suffers from insomnia would not necessarily find it to be the best cure—it is quite a good read. However, I intend to discuss not so much the report's contents as some of the areas on which the Government's helpful response did not touch.
  Some of BNFL's exceptionally qualified people have been involved in the nuclear industry since the outset. Its traditions come from the military and civil nuclear industries and its origins can be traced back to the 1940s. Understandably, great pride is taken in its achievements, but there is still a culture of secrecy, which is often unnecessary in a modern energy-oriented business. Such is the scientific complexity of its operations that there has been a tendency among some staff to patronise mere mortals, such as my colleagues and myself, and query the need for our work. That led to a stridency among some of those who are critical of its operations, which in turn created a tendency towards megaphone diplomacy on both sides of the debate.

  359
  We found among all levels of staff at BNFL a willingness and an anxiety to be helpful. They sought to provide us with the information that we wanted. However, the manner in which the accounts were drawn up suggested a degree of opacity that could be explained only by the cynical suggestion that there was something to hide. My colleagues and I had considerable sympathy for Dr. MacKerron, of Sussex university, who sought to get behind the facts and figures, but has been thwarted in all too many ways. I hope that BNFL's new chairman, Hugh Collum, who is a distinguished figure in the world of accountancy and finance, will be able to secure far greater transparency in the recording of the company's affairs.
  Dr. Stephen Ladyman: First, I apologise to my hon. Friend for having missed the first two minutes of his speech, and to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I assure you that when I saw my hon. Friend's name appear on the monitor, I broke the world record for running from Norman Shaw North to the Chamber.
  My hon. Friend touches on the key point that if we want BNFL to develop, and nuclear technology to become acceptable again, absolute openness in all that the industry does is essential. I refer not only to commercial considerations, but to scientific and safety aspects.
  Mr. O'Neill: I completely agree with my hon. Friend, whose apologies I accept. We all suffer such problems, but some hon. Members have heart conditions that are better suited to running like that.
  Frankly, there is now a recognition that last year's events, and the public's reaction, mean that a new approach is required. I hope that as well as Hugh Collum, the new managing director, Norman Askew, who was appointed in the wake of the data falsification scandals, will be successful. I stress that what occurred was not a technical failure in the company, but the falsification of data. The major concern was the threat not to safety, but to the company's business integrity and good name.
  The company deals with sensitive contracts throughout the world. It was therefore essential to bring in new management—people with a sense of responsibility—and to break with what might be called the mere civil service tradition in BNFL's business culture. That is why several new senior management figures, including the two whom I mentioned and others, are trying to inculcate in the company a radically different culture. I hope that it will embrace openness and a willingness to share technologies.
  Although the industry is nuclear, its engineering is not that complex. None the less, the materials that it uses require care and a safety culture, although those have not always been as strong as they should have been. We should face the fact that the nuclear industry is not alone in being affected by such considerations. The north-west of England contains chemical plants of a complexity that requires the highest safety standards. I do not suggest that such an approach is necessary only in the nuclear industry—it has been achieved across British industry and in the most advanced areas of technology.
  Mr. Eric Martlew: On the question of safety, the inquiry was into the proposed public-private partnership for BNFL. My constituency is close to
  360
  Sellafield and Chapelcross, and we regard safety as paramount. Does my hon. Friend believe that there would be any compromise on safety if we took in a private partner? Obviously, if a private partner comes in, money will go to the Exchequer. There has been disquiet in Cumbria for many years about the fact that even though Sellafield is in the area, money has not come from the Government to improve the infrastructure.
  We all realise that there will be a decline in the number of jobs in the nuclear industry, especially on the west coast. Does my hon. Friend believe that money should be given to improve the infrastructure? The road from my constituency to that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) is a disgrace, and this is a perfect opportunity to put money in and give us a better infrastructure so that we can encourage other industries to come to the west of the county when the number of jobs at BNFL declines.
  Mr. O'Neill: On my hon. Friend's last point, it is easier to get from Edinburgh to Carlisle than to get from Carlisle to Cockermouth. The area is not well served by its infrastructure, but I leave the lobbying for roads to others, as we all have our own agendas on where road funding should go.
  My hon. Friend asked about compromising safety. We had lengthy discussions with Mr. Lawrence Williams and his colleagues in the Health and Safety Executive, who were very sensitive to the issues that we raised. We know them and have had dealings with them in relation to other parts of the British nuclear industry. We got the feeling that their concerns about safety will not be compromised by any change in the nature of ownership. The standards that the HSE is now imposing on the nuclear industry will not be changed in any way as a consequence of a change in ownership.
  In recent years, the British nuclear industry has had traumatic experiences at Dounreay, Sellafield and other parts of its operation, where there has been overdependence on outsourcing. The problem was that in many cases, the existing management did not know what was going on because the work was being done not by them but by a range of contractors, who sometimes were not as safety-conscious as they should have been, and were not part of the big picture. As a consequence, the nuclear industry is now somewhat chastened.
  There are also suggestions that in some parts of the British nuclear industry—not at Sellafield—there was a hint of regulatory capture. Perhaps people had got too close to the organisations and the individuals whom they were supposed to be regulating.
  Dr. Rudi Vis: Is it not the case that if subcontractors are not as safety-conscious as they should be, it is BNFL's responsibility to make sure that they are?
  Mr. O'Neill: I do not dispute that. However, the previous Government set themselves on a particular road, and if they could not privatise parts of the nuclear industry, they wanted to outsource as much of the maintenance and engineering activities as they could. As a consequence of diktats from Ministers, there was a tendency throughout the nuclear industry to be overdependent on people who did not necessarily always have the safety awareness that they ought to have had, as is well recorded.

  361
  We took the question of safety very seriously, and, as I said, we held long sessions and had briefings and visits. When we went to Sellafield, we were briefed by the Health and Safety Executive before we went and saw what was happening. None the less, when we put things together, we came to the conclusion that there was a case for a public-private partnership. There was certainly a case for injecting money into the industry, over and above what was coming in from the public purse for what was, in the past, a fairly profitable business for us as British citizens.
  On the other hand, in the increasingly privately owned world nuclear industry, it is essential that proper commercial disciplines are introduced in organisations that still have a legitimate, but irrelevant, civil service tradition of administration. We have to get across to the work force and certain parts of the management of BNFL the message that what was good enough in the past will not be good enough in a globalised market, where there is always a downward pressure on costs and a need for a degree of flexibility in management—which have not always been the hallmarks of BNFL's operation.
  People will tell us that BNFL has been extremely effective in cutting costs and has made itself more efficient. I do not deny that, but I get the impression that BNFL and other parts of the British nuclear industry have lived for too long in a kind of cosy relationship and, as we say in Scotland, have been taking in each other's washing. They would do wee numbers for people, and jobs would be done. The point is not about safety; it is largely about sound business practice, which was not always present. Business was conducted by nods and winks, and, as the books were terribly difficult to understand and follow, it was sometimes difficult to track expenditure trails through the morass of the companies' accounts system, as Gordon MacKerron of Sussex University found.
  There was a veil of secrecy over the organisation, so there were understandable concerns about security and similar matters. Extremely hazardous materials are being used, so there must be a secure means of dealing with them. Indeed, it was a civil libertarian, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Senn), who, as Secretary of State for Energy, armed the police who guard BNFL establishments. My right hon. Friend introduced that measure because he recognised that the threat of terrorism was such that security had to be in place.
  The Select Committee came out broadly in favour of the PPP, for the reasons that I gave. We were a wee bit bemused by the question of whether the Government had considered the possibility of total privatisation. I realise that the company is involved with military, security and safety matters, and there may well be a case for a PPP, but the terms of the remit given to the accountancy company KPMG, which was called in as a consultant to conduct the exercise, were very narrow. Will my right hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe explain why the option of full privatisation was not offered? Was that on grounds of principle or practicality? We accept that, as a result of the events last year, the date for the creation of the PPP has slipped. However, will my right hon. Friend give us an indication of when the company will be ready for a widening of ownership?
  Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: When I read the part of the report that dealt with those matters,
  362
  I could not quite work out the motive behind the question. Why would we necessarily want to know whether that issue was included, when there would be open hostility in west Cumbria to 100 per cent. privatisation? An acceptable compromise has been made, so why was that question posed? Did people simply want to put it on the record that the option of privatisation should not be pursued?
  Mr. O'Neill: As my hon. Friend knows from his long years sitting on Select Committees and on the Public Accounts Committee, we always try to establish as much of a consensus as we can. Conservative Members on the Committee may want to know the arguments for full-blooded privatisation and Labour Members may want to know the arguments for a PPP. We felt that, as an exercise in open government, there would be no harm in asking the question, and I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will provide clarification.
  Mr. Askew told us that the targets would not be met this year, which will be important when we get to the practicalities of the PPP. He anticipated that additional, new, more stringent targets would be introduced. When are those targets likely to be published, and what form will they take? Will they be published or will they be put in the Library? We would be obliged if the Minister could give us that information.
  Once the company has passed those milestones, any potential investor would like, as a matter of due diligence, to be able to read and understand the accounts. I keep coming back to this issue, because it was a recurrent theme in the Committee. The reporting accountants were instructed to look into the clarity of the accounting procedures. Can the Minister tell us what bill of health they were given?
  In the Government's reply to the report, they said that there were opportunities in Japan. Can the Minister tell us what the position is now, and when, if at all, the transportation of spent fuel from Germany will be resumed? What is the state of play on the apparent disagreements between BNFL and its major customer, British Energy? British Energy has sent a document to a number of Members suggesting that it would require an immediate cut in the charges that BNFL imposes for work carried out. It is beginning to rattle the cage on the issue of storage rather than reprocessing after 2006. It is only right that we have a clearer understanding of the difficulty that has arisen between BNFL and its largest customer, British Energy.
  Mr. David Chaytor: Does my hon. Friend agree that the issue of storage versus reprocessing has not suddenly burst on to the scene recently? It has been given emphasis because of the position of British Energy. For many years, a solid body of evidence has suggested that storage is a safer long-term prospect, and cheaper than reprocessing. Does he not think that BNFL should have grasped that nettle long before now?
  Mr. O'Neill: My hon. Friend says that there is a body of evidence. There is certainly a body of opinion, but I am not sure whether the two are necessarily the same. I shall give an example. Prior to the privatisation of British Energy, the old Scottish Nuclear Ltd. was in protracted negotiations with BNFL on the processing of the Torness material. There was a debate at that time

  363
  about whether it should be stored at Torness, and it became clear that that was as much a negotiating tool used by Scottish Nuclear Ltd. as an environmental argument. None the less, we must recognise that storage on site is desirable if we want to avoid worries about transportation.
  There is also the question whether appropriate space and facilities are available on site at reasonable cost to provide the storage required. Storing is not a simple process. It is perhaps more attractive than having trains containing waste or spent fuel trundling across the country, and the worries that that would cause some people. Whether those anxieties would be justified is a different matter.
  We did not want to get into that issue in any great detail. However, we recognised that it was important, and that, as a revenue stream for a company that may be partially privatised, it would be of more than passing interest to anyone involved. We want to find out the Government's thinking.
  Mr. Christopher Chope: Does the hon. Gentleman agree with me that the Government's response to this particular aspect of our report is complacent in the extreme? They take a hands-off,"nowt to do with us" approach, and consider that this is a commercial matter for the two companies. Surely they should go to the root of the viability of any public-private partnership. We know from the Committee's other work that it is increasingly the practice in industry to work alongside suppliers. BNFL accounts for some 25 per cent. of British Energy's costs, and for them not to talk to each other and reach a common agreement on the issue is ridiculous.
  Mr. O'Neill: I would not go quite as far on this issue as my colleague on the Select Committee. I think that there is an appropriate relationship between state-owned corporations that are moving towards partial privatisation. There is an arm's-length relationship, and the decisions and the responsibility rest with the company.
  However, there is a problem. In some areas of reprocessing, such as MOX facilities, Ministries other than the Department of Trade and Industry are apparently reluctant to come to a decision about the licensing of the plant. We must question the working of government there. I would be happy for BNFL to have the maximum independence that it can have under the DTI within its present system of ownership. The hon. Gentleman and I agree that a public-private partnership would not be a bad thing. In order to prepare for it, BNFL's management must show that it is capable of running the company in the big, dangerous world with the maturity and independence that it has not always had hitherto.
  I want to put down a marker. It is not the demonstration facility for MOX that worries me, because I realise that that is not a major issue any more. However, we need to know what will happen to the main facility that has been constructed and is awaiting licensing. If it does not appear in the corporate plan, there will be a gaping hole in the finances.
  I have complained about the fact that we do not know where half the money is or where it goes—but we are now beginning to find out. It would be even more worrying if, when the plan is produced and we start to look for
  364
  potential partners for BNFL, such issues were not properly dealt with. They must not be handled with indecent haste, but there should be a decision. Governments should not hide behind indecision on such matters. Either we take this step or we do not, and if we do not, we must accept that the company will be that much smaller and perhaps less attractive, although we do not know.
  Since the report was published, we have had the rundown table for Magnox, which is helpful. However, we must ask questions about the prospects for fuel manufacture at Springfields and reprocessing at Sellafield, and what the consequences will be for those facilities given that Magnox probably has another 10 or 12 years before it is completely finished as a source of generation. We want to know what alternative uses will be sought for the Sellafield and Springfields sites.
  We should also like to know more about the Magnox liabilities. The longer Magnox is in operation, the longer the period over which liabilities can be spread, whereas if the operation period of Magnox stations were contracted, the liabilities would be spread over a shorter period. It is only fair to put that information in the public domain so that the impact of the change in the timetable on those liabilities is on the record.
  We should know a little more about the United States business and what has happened about Hanford. Contracts were renegotiated, and it was understandable that the problems of emerging work—as it used to be called in the refitting of British naval ships—were a lot bigger than anticipated, and the price had to be changed. A number of issues are involved, but the Hanford issue must be dealt with.
  I should like to deal with another, slightly different aspect of Magnox. What income stream replacement will there be when Magnox is removed from the company's activities? Although those reactors may be the dirty old warhorses of nuclear generation, they provide about 8 per cent. of our energy requirements. They are also linked to the national grid. Therefore, as the wires are there—to put it very simply—do Ministers have any proposals for alternative generation systems that could, if necessary, be connected to the system?
  Conversely, have the Government, in partnership with BNFL, considered whether there is a case for further nuclear generation? I am a bit ambivalent about that. Although I realise that, in terms of emissions, it is a very clean energy, I also know that it has problems with back-end costs and with liabilities. Nevertheless, if we want to create and sustain a proper generating mix in the United Kingdom, we have to recognise that, although windmills and wave generation may have considerable attractions, the attractions of alternative forms of generation have probably been exaggerated. I therefore think that we ignore the nuclear element at our peril.
  It is rather depressing that the Prime Minister, in an estimable speech to the Green Alliance, completely ignored the nuclear option. It is as if the Government have decided collectively to run away from the issue. I think that it is an abdication of intellectual responsibility to fail to consider one of the great British scientific achievements of the 20th century and to seek to discard it, as some people seem to be doing.
  I am not certain that, at this time, nuclear generation is the most economic means of generating electricity. I also recognise that it has environmental costs that are different

  365
  in character from those associated with gas-fired or coal-fired stations. However—as I have always said, as one who has always acknowledged a constituency dependence on the coal industry—if we are to continue arguing for electricity generated from coal, we shall have to continue using the nuclear industry, for some time to come, to create some space in the envelope. We have not yet found ways of bridging the potential generating gap that will begin to emerge from about the middle of this decade.
  Mr. David Drew: Does my hon. Friend accept that part of BNFL's importance lies in its links with Westinghouse and fourth-generation reactors? Does he also agree that if we do not proceed with that technology, the French or perhaps the Americans will lead the way? There is no doubt that we will need new nuclear capacity.
  Mr. O'Neill: The worst argument for any form of energy technology is that if we do not build it, someone else will. The history of the British electricity generating industry is littered with mistakes that are the consequence of such arguments. Across the country, we have power stations that were built because boiler suppliers were running out of orders. People have said, "If we try just a wee bit harder, we will have generators"—advanced gas-cooled reactors, pressurised water reactors, and Magnox, although not the latest ones—"with one type or another of the Union flag wrapped around them." We tend to go for such generators not because they provide safe and cheap energy, but because they create a lot of jobs at the same time. I think that we should have a single-mindedness about the way in which we consider power generation.
  As I said, in such a complex business there are other problems, such as the continuing anxiety about safety. Whatever happens, people will worry. The Dounreay situation is one of the interesting aspects of nuclear generation that the Committee investigated. Although it is one of the smaller-scale operations, in some ways Dounreay is just as dirty and difficult as others. In Scotland, and especially in the north of Scotland, there was anxiety about the condition of the site, safety procedures, its evident past sloppiness, and the fact that we now have to reap that whirlwind. However, under the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, and particularly with the leadership of John McKeown and his colleagues, there has been a transformation not only of the site but of the public's attitude towards it. Those anxieties have been largely diminished.
  There is a very vigilant group of individual critics of many of Dounreay's previous activities, but in evidence taken by the Committee, we saw a noticeable shift in their attitude. They were not embracing the facility, but they were certainly much less worried about it than they had been.
  I look forward to a public-private partnership involving BNFL, although I do not know as yet what activities it will engage in. My colleagues and I have as many unanswered questions as answered ones, as the situation was not clear when we were investigating. However, it is fortunate that we are having the debate today, when the Government and BNFL can look at the situation with a rather more detached and cooler eye than was available earlier this year to the new management.
  366
  My colleagues and I look forward to a public-private partnership. We think that BNFL can operate at a world-class level in various sectors of the nuclear industry, and that it has a tremendous contribution to make to British technology and science and to the economic well-being particularly of the north-west of England, and especially of Cumbria, where so many good jobs have depended on BNFL for so long.
  6.46 pm
  Mr. Michael Jack: I congratulate the hon. Member for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill) and the Select Committee on Trade and Industry on their report. His speech and the Committee's conclusions touch on some of the most important issues surrounding the proposed BNFL public-private partnership.
  I have a strong constituency interest in the matter, as the Springfields works are just outside Preston. When strangers come to my constituency and see the lovely, low and, in many cases, modern facilities, and ask, "What goes on in there?", to shock them I say, "That is the home of the United Kingdom's nuclear fuel manufacturing capability." It always surprises them. Great investment has gone into Springfields.
  I have also had the pleasure of meeting Springfields' work force and management, who are dedicated to quality, cost reduction and competitiveness. Although all those are buzz words, they are also real words that entail efficiency in modern business. They also demonstrate that, mentally, in their approach Springfields' work force and management are very much in the private sector. Although they very much welcome the proposals for a public-private partnership, as the Committee Chairman indicated, some may even be thinking more about full-scale privatisation. However, if the Government wish to pursue the PPP model, it is our job to discuss the industry's needs within that context.
  So often when we discuss British Nuclear Fuels, the difficulties of the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) and his constituents tend to dominate the debate, whereas the business's front and clean end—the manufacture of nuclear fuel—tends not to receive so much attention. However, BNFL's takeover of Westinghouse Electric Company's business has had great implications. It has absorbed into its midst not only a private enterprise, but the heart of world nuclear fuel manufacturing. It also demonstrates the difference in approach between BNFL's fuel and reactor services division and its other divisions.
  As BNFL's latest report indicated, those services are seriously big business: £730 million of BNFL's turnover is accounted for by the fuel and reactor services division. Although there have been natural growing pains as the company has taken on Westinghouse's responsibilities, that is driving the thinking about the fuel division and its future. I shall develop one or two of those points in a moment.
  I was grateful to the Select Committee Chairman for sharing his observations on the Prime Minister's speech on the environment. However, I do not want to get into the realm of party political point scoring, as the matters that we are debating are too serious and affect the livelihoods of thousands of people in my constituency whose jobs depend on the nuclear industry. Nevertheless, if we are to ensure that the British nuclear industry is

  367
  effective and that, in the not too distant future, it will be capable of seriously considering investment in new forms of nuclear generating capacity, we have to address some strategic issues. According to figures supplied to me by the company, in 1999–2000 our nuclear industry, BNFL and British Energy, will together have avoided the emission of about 79 million tonnes of carbon dioxide.
  I do not want to strike an unnecessarily controversial note with the Minister at this early stage, but in response to a question I had tabled inviting her to give me some feedback on the impact that the closure of the Magnox stations would have on the Government's meeting of its Kyoto targets, she rather surprisingly said that there would be no impact. There may well be some statistical reason for that, but—in the light of a point that I shall make shortly—I think that it would be useful to have it put on record why there will be no impact, given t;he likelihood of the closure of a major part of our nuclear generating industry over the next decade. We should view the matter in a European context. The nuclear energy generating industry avoids an emission of 800 million tonnes of carbon dioxide, and the European Union's Kyoto target of an 8 per cent. reduction in the emission of greenhouse gases is equivalent to 400 million tonnes of carbon dioxide. That makes clear the importance of the nuclear industry.
  When preparing for the debate, I visited BNFL's Springfields plant. I asked members of the work force to come and talk to me, and over 130 did, at two meetings. I told them that the debate represented a fairly rare opportunity for the House of Commons to discuss the nuclear industry, and that I wanted my questions, and the views that I would express, to be theirs rather than mine. A common theme in what they told me was their wish for the Minister to make a clear statement about how the Government see the strategic position of nuclear generation in this country.
  We can all talk about the business advantages of a public-private partnership or of full-scale privatisation, but we must ask what is the purpose. Part of it will be to change the business culture of BNFL. In this year's annual report, Hugh Collum said:
  We have set priorities for each business group to deliver their own short term targets; the continued prospect of a Public Private Partnership will provide a powerful incentive to improve performance.
  The Chairman of the Select Committee mentioned a number of changes that would have to be made in the management, and the management culture, of the company, but my dealings with the fuels division have shown me that many of those changes are already part of its working approach. If we are to realise the potential of a market which, in terms of nuclear fuel in the world, is worth some £20 billion, the commercial modernisation of BNFL—in terms of the fuels division, the potential for more capital and investment, and the improvements in production techniques that will enable BNFL to build on what is already there—is vital. It is vital if quotations such as the one that I read from the report are to become reality, and if the company's performance is to be improved.
  The main message from the work force at Springfields is, "We are as good as anyone in the world at making nuclear fuel, and we want to be given the opportunity to show what we can do." For example, at present they do
  368
  not make any of the pressurised water reactor fuel. It is a commodity in world terms, but they recognise that through quality comes safety, and that through a combination of quality, safety and excellence comes reduced cost—and an opportunity for them to compete again for parts of the nuclear fuel business to which they currently have no access. If that is to be turned to commercial advantage, the public-private partnership will be an extremely good way of ensuring that the commercial potential of the fuel division is properly realised.
  The Chairman of the Committee used the word "openness", and I concur with him entirely. I think that the fuels division is, if anything, more open than the back-end business, by the very nature of the occupation; but I pay tribute to BNFL. Who would have thought a few years ago that tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of people would go every year to a location next to the most radioactive site in the United Kingdom to learn about the nuclear industry? BNFL has provided for just that with its visitor centre, and efforts are made at the Springfields plant to give the local community a greater understanding of the industry.
  That is welcome—it is a way of demonstrating that nothing is happening in the industry of which people should be frightened. When the workers at Springfields are asked about their reaction to what happened at Sellafield, they make the powerful point that they live in local communities and are answerable to local people, and run a safe ship. They deeply regret what happened, but they have pride in their work. Springfields, in Lancashire, is one of the beacon locations for high quality, high-precision engineering.
  At a time when our manufacturing industry is under pressure, the advent of a public-private partnership and the opportunity for more investment will prove a very good way to sustain an industry in which the United Kingdom has considerable expertise and demonstrates considerable excellence. The Committee Chairman rightly reminded us of that.
  There is, however, a downside of openness. Sometimes BNFL says that it will not do something, for quality reasons. For example, the company—in true private-sector mode—told British Energy, its main customer for advanced gas-cooled reactor fuel—that it was not satisfied with a particular batch of fuel rods, and would withdraw it because it was worried about the weld. It was then vilified in the press because it had taken up an issue relating to safety and quality control.
  Let me return to my meetings with members of the work force. They would like us to talk more positively about the company's good points, because most discussion has been about the difficult aspects. Here is a responsible company, which is prepared on occasion to say to its principal customer, "We are not sending you this product because we are not satisfied with it." That is good management. We should encourage it, and the attitudes in the work force that go with it.
  I think that it would be helpful to the work force, in the context of the industry's future, for the Minister to address the strategic issues. Those workers asked me, "If we are to see the decline of the Magnox stations, what is the potential for investment in new techniques such as Magrox, a new reactor design such as the AP600, or the

  369
  introduction in the United Kingdom of the pebble bed reactor system in which British Nuclear Fuels in South Africa has already taken a minority investment stake?"
  On my recent visit, I found it interesting to observe the positive attempts that are being made to find ways of developing new designs at an affordable price, commensurate with benefits to the environment. I think that it would be helpful, while the Government own BNFL, to know how they feel about the subject, because I was asked more questions about it than about anything else. We can talk about new business arrangements and other procedures until the cows come home, but the people at Springfields want to know what is their future—and their future lies in the ability to make high-quality nuclear fuel for a long time to come.
  The workers are also concerned about the impact on their business of the new electricity trading arrangements. Perhaps the Minister will say a word about that. Does she feel that the system does not properly recognise—as does the climate change levy—the benefits that can be gained from the nuclear industry? There was a feeling among the work force that coal had benefited once again, in terms of the structure of the electricity trading market, to the detriment of clean fuel technology.
  Without doubt, the fuels division is ready for the competition that may result from the public-private partnership and the further introduction of private-sector techniques. However, as the Select Committee noted, the fuels division operates in a commercial world and it is right to place it in a commercial environment. That is the best way for it to learn how to react to competition from world companies such as Siemens, and others.
  The future business strategy will also be influenced by the public-private partnership. For example, the fuels division will have the opportunity to enter manufacturing for eastern bloc companies with the so-called VVR system of fuel. Another matter to be resolved is the future of hexafluoride production. Such major commercial decisions must be taken in the context of a clear understanding of when the public-private partnership will come into being.
  I welcome this debate on the nuclear industry, in the context of the public-private partnership proposal. I hope that the Minister, when she winds up the debate, will say more in response to the many important points raised by the hon. Member for Ochil and by the conclusions of the report from the Committee that he chairs.
  My constituents who work at Springfields want to know about the future of their business. They are anxious to take on the burden of more competition. They know that they are good, and they are dedicated to quality. Above all, they are dedicated to safety, but they want this debate to give them a clear indication as to the future of their industry.
  7.1 pm
  Dr. Jack Cunningham: I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill) and the Select Committee of which he is Chairman on a thorough, positive and concise report that is a vindication of the role of Select Committees in our proceedings. I have always strongly supported that role.
  I also congratulate my hon. Friend on his speech, in which he touched on all the key issues that are germane to the debate. In addition, I welcome my right hon. Friend
  370
  the Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe, and the Government's positive response to the report. Some questions remain unanswered, and I shall come to some of them in a moment.
  The BNFL Sellafield site is in my constituency, and I have represented it in the House for 30 years. At present, it employs about 10,000 people directly. It is a huge, complex, advanced, high-technology industrial site, and I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) is present, as many of his constituents work there.
  The influence of BNFL on the economy of the north-west goes far beyond the boundaries of my constituency and of the whole of Cumbria. The north-west region of England benefits hugely from the engineering and other contracts in which BNFL is involved, and from the massive investment that goes into the company every year. The company makes a very considerable contribution to the economy as a whole, and not merely to west Cumbria or the north-west region of England. It is probably still the biggest earner of yen in the British economy.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) pointed out that, although employment and investment at BNFL brings huge benefits for local people, there are some less positive factors. For example, there is not as much as 100 metres of the A595 from Carlisle to west Cumbria—the only trunk road to the Sellafield site—that is devoted to dual carriageway. That acts as a disincentive. The road is often horrendously congested, especially in my constituency. In addition, its lack of dual carriageway is presented as a reason why we cannot diversify the economy of west Cumbria more satisfactorily and successfully. That is something that we certainly need to do.
  I have absolutely no difficulty with the proposals for a public-private partnership in which the Government would retain a 51 per cent. interest. In fact, I welcome it as a positive proposal. It has been seriously delayed by events surrounding the MOX demonstration facility, but getting the company into a position to take that option forward successfully should be a short to medium-term objective of the Government and BNFL.
  I welcome, too, the fact that the company has a new chairman, chief executive and board. The Government's response to the Committee's report states:
  In its role as shareholder, the Government needs to ensure that it is properly informed about, and can support, the company's overall strategy.
  That has not always been true in the past of the Government's role in respect of BNFL. I am reassured by the deep commitment of my right hon. Friend the Minister to ensuring that the Government is properly informed about the company's strategy and can support it. As colleagues, she and I have had many meetings and discussions about the situation at Sellafield.
  I have also had discussions with the nuclear installations inspectorate, which has published reports detailing the changes that it wants implemented at the Sellafield site, and other changes that it wants the BNFL management to implement. I have called before, and do so again, for the full and comprehensive implementation of all the recommendations from the nuclear installations inspectorate. Wide-ranging management restructuring has

  371
  already been undertaken, at board level and at the Sellafield site, and I am delighted to say that some of the unsatisfactory elements at the site are being corrected.
  Earlier, my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil mentioned cost cutting, which is fine if it improves a company's efficiency and productivity. However, the previous board indulged not in cost cutting but in corner cutting, and that has been very deleterious to the successful operation of the company and the site. Many people pointed out those errors at the time: I am delighted that they are being corrected and that the company is recruiting workers in west Cumbria to replace many of the people in supervisory positions who were wrongly removed. That is very good news.
  So far, the nuclear installations inspectorate has been very positive about the response of BNFL to reports that were pretty searching, if not coruscating. However, a great deal remains to be done, not least when it comes to the better management of Sellafield's legacy. That legacy originated in the military programme at the site, and was reinforced by other activities more recently. It is good to know that the nuclear installations inspectorate is satisfied with the progress made so far.
  Emphatic support has been expressed for BNFL and its future by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe, and by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who said earlier this year that he believed that BNFL should be left to get on with the job. It is a world leader in many aspects of what it does. 1 agree with what the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) said in respect of Springfields, but it is also true of much of the work carried out at Sellafield. There is massive support for the industry among the communities that my hon. Friend the Member for Workington and I represent in west Cumbria.
  In particular, we welcome the support that the Select Committee gives to BNFL's future, and we are pleased that it highlights the need for the company to continue fuel reprocessing at Sellafield. Indeed, we would go further—we hope that there will be an early decision to commission fully the Sellafield MOX fuel plant. That point was also raised in the Select Committee report. Such a decision would, in turn, open up new opportunities for business for BNFL. The global market for nuclear business is increasing. Many other countries, including many of our European neighbours, already have much larger nuclear contributions to their energy generation than we do. There will be business opportunities not only in Europe but further afield, in Japan and elsewhere.
  I am in no doubt, and never have been—I have been a lifelong supporter of civil nuclear power—that the world will need an increasing contribution if we are to have any hope of turning the dangerous tide of global warming. The reality is that we will not meet those challenges without a contribution from civil nuclear power.
  The company faces other problems as well, not just those flowing from the falsification of quality control data. Let me say again how pleased I am that the Select Committee has put that properly in context. This was never an issue of safety. It was an issue of falsification, which was quite wrong—indeed, it was devastatingly damaging to the company and to the jobs of those who, sadly, got involved. However, it was not an issue of safety
  372
  on the site. It went to the heart of the integrity of the company and its products and processes. That is what has been so damaging not only to trade opportunities but to the core finances of the company. We all know how poor its financial results have been.
  I am quietly confident that the new management, together with the dedicated, skilled work force, will be able to turn the company around. They should certainly be given the support, encouragement and opportunity to do so, not just from the Select Committee but from the Government.
  The targets set at Kyoto for climate change will be challenging enough in themselves with the present contribution of civil nuclear power to electricity generation. If we got rid of that contribution altogether, as some argue we should, the ability to meet those targets would disappear over the horizon. That seems evident, and it is not only my view but that of many others in this debate. I have never argued that we should generate all our electricity in nuclear power stations, and I shall not do so this evening, but as the evidence about the impact of global warming mounts, it is clear that civil nuclear power should have a role as one part of the solution—one option, one contribution—to a balanced energy policy.
  The right hon. Member for Fylde pointed out that our modest contribution from civil nuclear power already obviates the production of about 79 to 80 million metric tonnes of carbon dioxide every year. In addition to that, it does not create oxides of nitrogen or sulphur, as does the burning of other fossil fuels. So using nuclear power offers quite a wide-ranging contribution to a better environment.
  As I said, my views are not unique but are widely held. They are shared by other Governments and other countries and, in this country, by the Royal Society, the Royal Academy of Engineering and by many British trade unions. They are also shared by at least some European Commission officials who point out that if we are to make progress on global warming targets, about 85 new nuclear power stations will be needed within the European Union. James Lovelock, the creator of the Gaia theory on the environment, has spoken out in favour of a contribution from civil nuclear power to electricity generation. That is widely welcomed by myself and others.
  I pay tribute to my constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Workington who dedicate themselves to meeting the highest possible standards of safety and skill that can be achieved. The work force at Sellafield contains some of the leading world exponents of engineering, nuclear physics and environmental science. They are very proud of what they can achieve and of the opportunities that they present for improving the performance of the British economy as a whole. They deserve our thanks for that skill and dedication. They get a little tired of Members of Parliament calling for the closure of the plant willy nilly—not to mention a little angry, since that would mean that about 15,000 families in west Cumbria, and some more beyond, would be on the dole. Of course, it is a ridiculous assertion to make in the first place. Even if some aspects of the activity at Sellafield were to close, for whatever reason, other aspects would have to continue long into the future.
  There were exchanges earlier about the storage of irradiated spent nuclear fuel. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) asserted that that should

  373
  have been considered. He seemed to be implying that it had not been considered. Well, it has been. It is not that BNFL has not considered dry storage—it has considered the issue and dismissed it, and rightly so. BNFL thinks that reprocessing is the best practical environmental option when it comes to dealing with spent nuclear fuel, and 1 agree. It is rather curious to argue that nuclear sites present a threat to people and the environment and then in the next breath to say that we should nevertheless have more and more nuclear sites around the country as more and more dry stores are built. The people who advocate that never answer the question of what follows dry storage. What happens then? We all know that we cannot dry-store Magnox fuel in any event. Yet nobody ever answers those questions.
  Mr. Chaytor: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Dr. Cunningham: Certainly, in a moment.
  No one ever says what happens if we store fuel and 10, 15, 20, 40 or 50 years down the track, there are problems with it. That would lead to proliferation, at every nuclear power station in every part of the country, of potential problems that would almost certainly need to be resolved by moving the fuel, which would then be in a far less safe state than when it comes out of the reactors and can be safely transported to Sellafield, as it has been for decades without any significant accident of any kind involving people or the environment.
  Mr. Chaytor: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way on this point. May I ask him to consider two issues? First, BNFL has always said that it was not possible to store Magnox fuel and that it had to be reprocessed. If that is the case, why is Magnox stored at Wylfa and not reprocessed? Secondly, I take the point that dry storage has a life cycle and that at some point we have to find a permanent solution. However, if we use the same argument, we have to find a permanent solution to the storage of plutonium. The difficulty at the moment is that, through reprocessing, we are creating mountains and mountains of plutonium—the most dangerous substance known to man—and we have no idea what to do with it. In defending reprocessing, my right hon. Friend must say something about plutonium.
  Dr. Cunningham: There are two things wrong with what my hon. Friend says—at least two things. I am pleased that he concedes that dry storage is not in itself a permanent solution. However, his assertion that we are creating mountains and mountains of plutonium is simply an exaggeration. The plutonium that is created is all stored in my constituency, quite safely and securely, and presents no problem. It is not a threat to anyone. I can arrange for my hon. Friend to visit Sellafield and see for himself, if he has not already been. He talks about the problem of long-lived nuclear waste accruing from reprocessing. There is nothing like a visual aid when one is discussing these matters. I have one on my desk, and perhaps I should have brought it with me. If all the electricity that I consume in my life were generated from nuclear power, the resultant highly active waste would occupy a cylindrical shape about 2 inches in diameter and 2 inches high. That is the reality.
  374
  Of course the waste is a problem and we need to contain and deal with it. We have debated that matter in the past, and my hon. Friend the Member for Workington and I have differed on the best way forward, so I do not want to get into that argument again tonight.
  Although I respect the right of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North to question and debate the issues, he does not serve anyone's cause by exaggerating the nature of the problem or overstating it. Some people try to scare the public—I do not accuse him of doing this—into believing that we cannot manage these matters: that we are not competent and that we do not have the skills, the scientific know-how and the engineering ability to deal with them. The truth is that we do. We have had nuclear power in this country for a long time. We have a lot of operating experience, and in BNFL we have some of the leading people in their fields in the world. That is one reason why the Americans are increasingly turning to BNFL to draw on its expertise and experience to decommission some of their military bases, such as Rocky Flats and Savannah River. We can make a huge contribution by helping the former Soviet republics to tackle the awful legacy and backlog of nuclear problems that they have. We can make a huge difference to the global environment if we have the courage and common sense to back our nuclear industry and give it the support that it needs.
  I hope that the Government will give the go-ahead without too much further delay, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil said, to the Sellafield MOX plant, so that we can deal in another way with a problem that my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North raised: what we should do with plutonium. We can burn it, as mixed oxide fuel, in nuclear reactors. That is what we can do to decrease the stockpile that my hon. Friend rightly says exists. My hon. Friend says that there are mountains of it; I say that there are not mountains, but there is some.
  The great thing about nuclear fuel is that 97 per cent. of everything that comes out of a nuclear reactor can be recovered and recycled. Surely that obviates the necessity for mining uranium, which is one of the dirtiest aspects of the operation.
  Mr. Chaytor:Plutonium can be burned in MOX fuel, but we have to ask why British Energy does not want to burn it. It is because it is not economic. The second question is why BNFL has only 7 per cent. of the contracts that it needs to justify the operation of the MOX plant. That is because not enough utilities in Japan want to burn MOX fuel. Those are serious questions on which I hope my right hon. Friend will comment.
  Dr. Cunningham: A number of people have mentioned British Energy. It is a privatised company and it is in financial difficulties. We all know that. I take no pleasure in saying it, but it is the reality. British Energy has simply said, "Let's abrogate our contracts with BNFL and put them into difficulties too." That is not the way business works. BNFL has lawful, signed contracts and has every right to insist that it be paid for the work that it has been contracted to carry out.
  The right hon. Member for Fylde commented on the fact that there are no new-build nuclear power stations. I have always supported that idea and I would love to see it happen. The fact is, however, that after the privatisation

  375
  of the electricity generating industry, the privatised utilities do not want to build such power stations. I am not saying that they will never want to do so, but they do not want to do it now. In that regard, I am almost on the same ground as my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North.
  My hon. Friend is wrong to say that the Japanese utilities do not want to purchase MOX fuel and use it in their reactors. I think that he will be pleasantly surprised—or perhaps unpleasantly, given his standpoint on these issues. We can recover in the Japanese market. In my constituency in west Cumbria—at Sellafield—we have had a long, profitable and good association with Japanese industries. Japanese people are very welcome in the area. They come regularly to visit my constituency, mainly on business, but sometimes for pleasure, too, since it is one of the most beautiful parts of the world. I very much look forward to the prospect of BNFL at Sellafield doing more business with the Japanese utilities. That would be good news for my constituents and for the Cumberland and United Kingdom economies, and it would enable us to tackle the huge problems and threats that are presented to us by global warming.
  I look forward to the Minister's replies not only to my questions but to those of my colleagues. I pay tribute to her for the way in which she has committed herself to work with BNFL to try to sort out the difficulties—they are considerable and I would not want to underestimate them. I give her my wholehearted support. I shall certainly work with her and other colleagues in the Government to ensure that we resolve those problems and that the company can go forward to further successes.
  7.27 pm
  Mr. Andrew Stunell: I very much welcome the introduction by the hon. Member for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill) to the debate on the Select Committee report and the work that that Committee has done. This is a long-overdue exploration by the House of the state of the nuclear industry and of BNFL in particular.
  I am a Member of Parliament from the north-west and I am extremely conscious of the high skill levels in the industry and the large number of jobs that are at stake. I am also conscious of the contribution that it makes to the welfare of that region and the country.
  Unexpectedly, I found myself in a deal of agreement with the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), in particular with his remarks about the need to pursue vigorously the rectification of problems and to explore diversification. I may have been able to reassure the right hon. Gentleman, as we made the occasional eye contact, that it is certainly not my view that we could or should shut the door and walk away from BNFL or our civil nuclear power programme. Clearly, that programme should be allowed to continue as long as it is safe and economic, as it helps us to achieve our Kyoto targets and it benefits the nuclear industry as it stands. That may provide some reassurance for those working at BNFL's various sites.
  In many respects, however, the nuclear industry has been its own worst enemy. It has been secretive and defensive for decade after decade. Often, it seems to have put safety second and cost third, and something rather hazy, called a "national objective" in first position, which seemed to override common sense on many occasions.
  376
  The industry has not been scrutinised by the House for many years. We have had a number of notable debates, which seem to come at approximately 10-year intervals. In those debates, my colleagues on the Liberal and Liberal Democrat Benches have marked out the cause of common sense and the need to challenge the unwritten and unstated assertions that have underpinned the industry. Those are all good reasons to welcome the debate; and to welcome both the Committee's report and the Government's response to it.
  BNFL, as a significant part of this country's nuclear industry, has received major investment over several decades. It remains a major employer and maintains a major lead in nuclear and other important forms of technology; it is certainly a world leader in the manufacture, control and management of nuclear materials and fuel. The company has world-class expertise in decommissioning facilities and it is using that well.
  Those are three major pluses, but there are also some major minuses. The company has experienced major environmental failures. The right hon. Member for Copeland may claim that a huge amount of waste would fit into a tumbler; that is fine, but a fundamental problem with all forms of nuclear material is that, intrinsically, they are highly traceable. An amount far smaller than could be contained in a tumbler could be detected on a beach in Norway 25 years after it was discharged into the sea at Sellafield, and traced back to its source with absolute certainty.
  A fundamental of nuclear physics is the traceability of material because of radiation. However secretive people are and however long they resist acknowledging the problems when environmental failures occur, the nuclear signature—the fingerprints, the DNA sign—is always there. Those major environmental failures have dogged the nuclear industry throughout its life.
  There are major economic failures too. At present, nuclear power is not an economic vehicle for investment for future civil power generation.
  There have been major safety and security failures. Perhaps they are rarer in this country than they used to be; perhaps they are acknowledged more quickly. However, it is clear on some occasions that safety and security are compromised internationally.
  The pluses and minuses of the nuclear industry have been well rehearsed and are strongly polarised. That often makes it difficult to hold a rational discussion—it is assumed that one must take an extreme point of view to take part. It is extremely encouraging that the Select Committee has produced such a measured, objective and careful report. The report explores the issues thoroughly and provides much helpful briefing; in the past, there has been much comment on the nuclear industry—some of it polemical and harsh. No doubt, hon. Members will bring that to bear on our debate.
  We must realise, however, that BNFL—whatever else it has to do—must refocus its business. The company must repair its reputation, which has taken a severe knocking during the past 12 months—as all those who have spoken so far agree. The company must retire from reprocessing. The House must address those issues. The Government must inform us about them and, as a shareholder, they must take an active role in promoting them.

  377
  It is clear that the determination of the Government must be applied to the interests of BNFL in order for the company to refocus its business, repair its reputation and retire from reprocessing. Time and money will be needed.
  The deferment of the implementation of the public-private partnership proposal was inevitable, given the problems experienced by the company. However, that deferment is also beneficial and desirable; even the new date referred to in the report will be too soon. If BNFL is to have a role in the future, it is important that the company understands the international context in which it operates. BNFL must refocus its business.
  I depart strongly and sharply from the views of the right hon. Member for Copeland; it is not true that nuclear power is expanding worldwide. The number of nuclear reactors in commission in the world has been locked at about 500 for the past 15 years. New reactors are being built and commissioned, but the pattern is that they are in countries that either have authoritarian regimes or a perceived military or strategic need for nuclear power—or both.
  Nuclear reactors are being decommissioned in every liberal democracy, and even in some countries that would not qualify as such; for example, Turkey and Taiwan have both recently decided not to proceed with nuclear power. There are complex reasons for growth in some areas and for the decision to restrict and decommission in others.
  Dr. Ladyman: There is an alternative way to explain the differences in the commissioning and decommissioning of nuclear power stations. Are they not being commissioned in countries that do not have access to, or the money to buy, fossil fuels? They are being decommissioned in countries that have access to such fuels, where people are prepared to close their eyes to the fate of the world and to global warming.
  Mr. Stunell: That is an interesting theory. However, it is always a mistake to ask a question to which one does not know the answer. The theory is not true. India offers an obvious example; nuclear power is being developed there, but it also has huge coal reserves. China is installing nuclear power; it too has large coal reserves and is actually expanding its generation of both fossil and nuclear fuels. Switzerland offers an example for my point about liberal democracies. That country has almost no coal reserves, but has decided to abandon its nuclear programme.
  Various arguments can be brought to bear on the subject—I was just about to deploy one of them—but the shortage or the presence of fossil fuels is not a significant reason for nuclear development. A significant reason for a decision not to expand or develop a country's nuclear programme is popular opinion expressed through the ballot box. That is the major constraint—not science or resources or the inability to secure cash: public opinion provides the obstruction.
  The UK should not engage in an accelerated decommissioning of our civil nuclear programme, for all the reasons that have been set out in the debate. However, BNFL's plans—I am not sure if that is the right word—or ideas for building two plutonium-fuelled reactors at Sellafield seem to be wholly unrealistic according to those reasons, quite apart from any others that might be adduced.
  Dr. Jack Cunningham: The hon. Gentleman says that the use of nuclear power is not expanding. In 1999,
  378
  according to BP Amoco's world energy review, its use expanded by 4 per cent. However, that is merely a difference of opinion between the hon. Gentleman and me.
  The hon. Gentleman refers to the BNFL's plan to build two reactors at Sellafield in my constituency. I do not know where he obtained his information, but the company has no plan to build even one new nuclear power station at Sellafield—let alone two plutonium-fuelled ones. He is categorically wrong about that. The company has not even discussed potential plans to build such a station. Yesterday, I held a long discussion with the chief executive of BNFL about that myth. I have a letter from the director of the Sellafield site saying the same thing; there are no plans and there have been no discussions about plans. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that his information is fundamentally wrong.
  Mr. Stunell: I am happy to accept the right hon. Gentleman's assurance. My information was not meant to be an extraordinary revelation, because, as he rightly says, it is taken to be common currency. It has been put to me by several quarters, but not by BNFL. Therefore, I am happy to accept the assurances that I have been given. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman's alacrity in wanting to state the facts clearly before the House only underlines my point that the chances of expanding the civil nuclear power programme in this country are bedevilled by the problem of persuading the public that that might be a good idea.
  Mr. Chaytor: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the trend away from nuclear energy in most liberal democracies is not just a question of public opposition to it—even though it would be interesting to learn how many Members would actively volunteer to have the next nuclear power station built in their constituency? The problem is not just public opposition, because liberal democracies now understand the costs of commissioning, decommissioning and dealing with waste. They have calculated that the cost is unsustainable over the full life cycle of a nuclear power station. In addition, those countries—the United States and Germany in particular—now understand the technology of renewable energy to a far greater degree than ever before and they are investing in hydrogen technologies and photovoltaics.
  Mr. Stunell: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, because his thinking overlaps with mine to some extent.
  I referred to liberal democracies and to the problems that are created for nuclear power by democracy. However, the "liberal" element—by that, I mean trade liberalisation—also creates a problem. As the right hon. Member for Copeland rightly pointed out, a future civil nuclear power programme in this country will be seriously handicapped, because the privatisation, deregulation and liberalisation of our electricity services mean that it is not a financially sound prospect to invest in civil nuclear power.
  Were the right hon. Gentleman and Ito form a financial consortium and to go to the major banks to ask them to lend us a sum approaching £800 million to build a civil nuclear power station that would be on stream in 10 years' time if we were lucky, the banks would probably tell us that that would not be a sound proposition. If they had

  379
  £800 million, they would prefer to give it to us to do something that would gain a return in a shorter time, in which the investment was more likely to be realised and, when that investment was realised, was likely to be profitable.
  Mr. O'Neill: I missed part of the hon. Gentleman's speech, but I have been following it since I returned to the Chamber. What would his reaction be if the Government of the day—party non-specific—introduced a carbon tax on energy generation? Surely, the economics of that would be transparent overnight and, given the Liberals' enthusiasm for all things fiscal, it is likely that they would not choose to oppose a carbon tax. However, were they to support one, would they go the extra mile and face the consequences of choosing what might then be the cheapest fuel, namely nuclear power?
  Mr. Stunell: Serendipity sometimes works remarkably well. I had reached precisely the point in my notes where I had written about the Ochil case. The economics of producing electricity, like the economics of producing anything else, can be tilted by fiscal and regulatory measures, and the Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe might want to comment on that fact. I am sure that she will also remember that, when we served together on the proceedings of the Utilities Bill, I tabled amendments that would have introduced a carbon tax. Far from our opposing the suggestion, it is good Liberal Democrat policy and I have advocated it in the House.
  Given that there will be state intervention—either fiscal or regulatory—to tilt the market in favour of one fuel or another, what will the cost of that be? I would be happy to supply the hon. Gentleman with a copy of my booklet on the topic. However, for an equivalent amount of investment by the state, one can obtain more electricity more cheaply, with less environmental impact and with much more certain support from the public by investing in renewables rather than in nuclear power.
  You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, might be becoming impatient at the fact that we are exploring an issue that was not covered by the report, so I shall return to a previous point. BNFL's reputation as a company must be repaired. There is common ground in the House that, over 20, 30 or more years, the problems have followed a repeated cycle. Something happens, it is concealed and denied and that is followed by reluctant disclosure and then a promise of reform and change.
  About six months before the most recent incident took place, I visited BNFL at the company's invitation in my role as the Liberal Democrats' spokesman on energy matters. I was given an extensive trip round the site and its facilities and much was explained to me. One of the key points that was made in the several presentations that I heard, including separate presentations from senior management and the trade unions, was that everything had changed and that the company now had a safety culture. I was told that the problems of the past had occurred under different managements and different regimes and before the problems had been understood. The company was absolutely focused on safety. However, I now know that,
  380
  at almost exactly the time that I visited the company, people were filling in last year's numbers on the check sheets and creating the current problem.
  Mr. David Rendel: Given that my hon. Friend is referring to BNFL's reputation, does he agree that it was an extraordinary Government decision earlier this year that the company should be put partly in charge of Britain's major nuclear arms centre at Aldermaston? Does he not agree that that is yet another good reason for putting off the privatisation of BNFL?
  Mr. Stunell: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. It was a strange decision and it is a good reason for delaying the public-private partnership.
  I now come to the company's business, how that might be related to what the PPP would deliver, and the risks of going down that route. It is time for the company to refocus its activities and to move on from reprocessing. As a constituency Member, as a former Minister and as a former Opposition spokesman, the right hon. Member for Copeland has been a long-term, dedicated and properly committed supporter of BNFL's work. Equally, Liberal Democrats have been sceptical of the steps that have been taken and the investment that has been made. We think that, at least to some extent, we are entitled to say, "We told you so".
  THORP has always been an uneconomic project, but it has been justified in a three-legged way. First, part of it is justified because the fuel is coming through. Burning the fuel is then justified because the reprocessing is coming through and storage cannot take place because it would not be economic to stop the reprocessing. For nearly 40 years, we have had a succession of arguments that have been entirely self-reinforcing. We now have a large facility that is not working and is supplying materials that every one of its customers would desperately like not to have to buy but which they have been trapped into buying by contractual arrangements. One could say the same of Magnox business and MOX business—of course, the MOX demonstration facility has been shut down.
  What should happen next? There must be ways of involving and using the work force and the technology that has been developed. There is a major worldwide decommissioning industry, not to mention decommissioning on the site in west Cumbria itself. There is a worldwide need for clean-up facilities. There is also a need for a plutonium immobilisation programme because that will solve the problem of the mountain—or the molehill, as the case may be—of plutonium that is being generated across the world.
  Dr. Cunningham: Is not this a rather curious argument for the hon. Gentleman to advance? He is saying that BNFL should use its skills, expertise and know-how to get into the huge global market, but a few moments ago he agreed that it was not fit to operate at Aldermaston. Both arguments cannot be right.
  Mr. Stunell: Both arguments can be right. My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) said that the existing company, with its current skills, is an unusual example of a contractor that one would appoint to run the services at a military installation. The issue of decommissioning relates not primarily to military

  381
  complexes but to civilian complexes around the world. The right hon. Member for Copeland referred to the former Soviet Union, where leaking reactors in civil nuclear power and associated facilities is a serious issue.
  I hope, as the right hon. Gentleman does, that the company will restore its reputation and sell its expertise. The only difference between us is that he thinks that it should restore its reputation and sell its expertise on the next generation of nuclear power around the world, whereas I think that it should restore its reputation and use its expertise on the more significant job of decommissioning, which is, in economic terms, the more realistic option. I do not believe that there is a market for long-term significant expansion in civil nuclear power worldwide, let alone in this country.
  For all those reasons, I believe that the prospect of a PPP is—quite correctly—being pushed further and further away by events. Paragraph 19 of the Select Committee's report states:
  From the published summary of KPMG's work—
  the consultants who considered the whole issue—
  it is by no means self-evident that the injection of private sector capital through a PPP is the best way of injecting private sector discipliness,
  which are supposed to be the benefit that accrues from the proposed partnership. The report also hinted that KPMG had had its wings clipped so that its study pointed towards a PPP because that was what it was expected to do.
  My main point about the merit of the PPP—or, in this case, its lack of merit—is that the merit ascribed to it in the report is that it would introduce private sector disciplines. It is hard, however, especially this month, to believe that those disciplines are the same as a better safety culture. Without taking too many cheap shots, one only has to say the word Rai1track, which did not go ahead with the train protection system, did not get its maintenance techniques right and cut back on its investments, to prove that.
  Private sector disciplines are more associated with reducing manpower costs, which usually means fewer staff, cheaper staff and not investing in trained staff. It usually means reduced overheads, outsourcing and the use of cheap contractors. It has already been mentioned that there was an over-reliance on precisely those practices. Private sector disciplines usually mean a search for short-term returns and profits. In addition, the House might be concerned to learn that private sector disciplines mean that secrecy would be brought into play even more often because the information would be commercially sensitive.
  For those reasons I have doubts about whether private sector disciplines are really what we need, never mind what we would get from such a partnership. There is a further consideration: diversification will need direction and investment that is probably not available from the private sector.
  I conclude by asking the Minister some questions and issuing her some challenges. Will she undertake that, as and when the PPP goes ahead, there will be no loss of openness and transparency? That is not a high threshold to reach, given what we have now. Will she undertake to report back to the House and give the House an opportunity to decide on the issue of a PPP so that, unlike many previous decisions, this decision will not be
  382
  smuggled through without proper parliamentary scrutiny? Will she assure us about her understanding of what private sector disciplines mean as applied to this case? Will she also say something about the Government's commitment to diversification, or not, for the future business of BNFL? Liberal Democrat Members believe that only that diversification will allow us to underpin and guarantee the technology base, the manpower and the skills that the company possesses.
  7.57pm
  Ms Helen Southworth: More than 2,000 people work at BNFL headquarters in Warrington, most of whom live locally. Unsurprisingly, the company's performance and prospects are very important in my constituency and the north-west. Even by excluding investment in external capital and joint ventures, disregarding BNFL's 15 per cent. stake in NNC, which employs 1,000 people at Knutsford, and excluding UrenCO2 which BNFL jointly owns with Dutch and German partners, BNFL contributes £790 million a year to the north-west economy. It has an incredible impact on the supply chain in my region.
  BNFL is extremely big business for Britain. Following the acquisition of Westinghouse and ABB nuclear business, about half of BNFL's £2 billion annual turnover now comes from overseas trade. Those overseas contracts are incredibly significant for the British taxpayer because they help to reduce liability costs. For example, THORP contributes more than a quarter of the Sellafield site overheads, at around £250 million per year. Without THORP' s overseas work, much of that cost would fall on the British taxpayer.
  My right hon. Friend the Minister and the Chairman of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill), will not be surprised to discover that 1 am particularly interested in BNFL's impact on the region's science base. It is a knowledge-based company and a number of hon. Members referred to its world-leading skills and technologies that are vital for the United Kingdom. BNFL spent £96 million on research and development in the last financial year, which puts it in the top 20 UK companies that are involved in research and development investment.
  BNFL is a major player in science in the north-west. It is encouraging universities there to build on BNFL technological development. Developments, such as chemical vapour deposition technology at Salford University, laser scabbing at Liverpool university and UMIST, auxetic materials technology at the Bolton Institute and radiation neutron selectors at Lancaster university have been mentioned, but are worth considering in more detail. On average, over the past five years, the company has sought patent protection for about 40 inventions a year. That adds up to about 240 individual patent applications pursued over the years. The novel technologies include microchemical engineering, auxetic materials, sensing technologies, new methods of separation, laser technology, biotechnologies and supercritical fluid separation.
  The company has more than 100 relationships with 35 universities, most of which are in the United Kingdom, through which it directly invests more than £3 million each year. It has established a radiochemicals centre in partnership with Manchester university and a

  383
  particle technology centre with Leeds university. It also supports Westlakes postgraduate centre in Cumbria, in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), where nuclear, non-nuclear, environmental, genetic and epidemiological research is undertaken. BNFL makes far more than a minor contribution to the north-west science base. It provides staff and other resources to several university courses and a number of the company's staff hold professorships at UK universities.
  BNFL is a high-tech company that is driving Britain forward in the international knowledge-based economy. The prospect of the PPP gives us a timely opportunity rigorously to scrutinise the operations and performance of the company and to ensure best possible value for the taxpayer, within a framework and culture of safety for the public and the environment, while protecting crucial investment in what I and many of my right hon. and hon. Friends believe is the best and most important region in the country.
  It is disconcerting that after 30 years in public ownership, it has taken the review of BNFL's status and structure that was decided on early in this Government's tenure, for the shareholders on behalf of the public—Ministers—fully to exercise their responsibilities. The evidence given to the Committee by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe is extremely welcome, especially her commitment to "shine a light into dark corners" at BNFL. We want the company to succeed and the shareholder on behalf of the British taxpayer must ensure that that happens.
  Also welcome is my right hon. Friend's commitment to pursue the achievement of safety and performance targets set for the company, and her undertaking not to take her eye off the ball in respect of BNFL's performance. I am happy to put those statements on the record, because they are extremely important aspects of the evidence taken by the Committee. The Government's reply to the Committee's recommendation that new stringent, but achievable, targets should be set, linked to the company's own objectives and with clear time scales, promises revision in the light of the year's performance and the corporate plan. Will my right hon. Friend state what progress has been made and when the revised targets will be published? We shall continue to take a close interest in the targets, because they can be used to demonstrate whether the company is making progress.
  Like many right hon. and hon. Members, I consider the appointment of a new chairman and chief executive who have said that they are
  determined to make a real and lasting change
  in terms of reforming BNFL's safety and performance to be a significant indicator of improvement. I especially welcome the creation of a new post, director of operations at Sellafield, the holder of which will have responsibility for safety and operations throughout the whole site.
  Sellafield has an unhappy distinction: according to their manifestos for elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly, the only policy on which the political parties within the Assembly agree is their demand for Sellafield to cease operations and to stop discharges into the Irish sea.
  384
  I have made it clear before to board members and I say now, on the record, that Sellafield has to clean up its act and, most important, it must be seen to do so. The new team promises that safety and cultural issues are being addressed. Its members say that they recognise that safety is not only in the equipment, but in the mind. They have to be sure that it is in the mind of every person working in and monitoring activities of the business, which includes people who are contracted to carry out work for the company. Public confidence, both national and international, depends on their performance in the coming months.
  We all know that safety has huge environmental and commercial significance. It has to be like the lettering in Blackpool rock, running all the way through, so that wherever one cuts it the message is clear. BNFL is a global player in the international energy market and making sure that it is a safe and successful player is the responsibility of the owner—the Government.
  The Select Committee investigation clearly stated that BNFL has been allowed to go its own way for far too long. For most of the past three decades, it has been more constrained by regulators and pressure groups than by supervision and scrutiny exercised by Ministers and Parliament. British Ministers have to take seriously their responsibility for a business that has great significance to the British taxpayer. 1 am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe has put on the record her commitment to doing so.
  One of the most significant opportunities that the PPP will bring to BNFL is swifter decision making on required investment. The company is of major economic importance to UK plc. Business lost by BNFL goes overseas, into a market worth more than £20 billion. The system that has been in operation for the past 30 years has proved to be over-long and cumbersome, and too often disconnected from the demands of business.
  The company has reported that nearly half of the forty-odd key action points from the Health and Safety Executive Sellafield inspection report have been addressed—and so they should have been. There must be constant and systematic progress within the company in respect of safety management. Concerns about discharges from Sellafield and other BNFL sites, which the Environment Agency expressed to the Select Committee, are critical in every sense of the word. One of the regional general managers told the head of Magnox generation in November 1999 that
  the agency has gained an overall impression that the company is not demonstrating sufficient corporate ownership of the problem.
  BNFL has already begun to tackle the issue with sweeping changes throughout the company, but progress toward a PPP and the parliamentary and ministerial scrutiny that that generates provides an opportunity to ensure that a vigorous and independent regulatory regime can carry out its intended function to the satisfaction of customers and the general public. We have to ensure constant, regular scrutiny—not examinations once every 10 years. The business needs such scrutiny and the British taxpayer has a right to expect it.
  It would be helpful if my right hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe gave an indication of progress on the decision from the Secretaries of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and for Health on the full commissioning of the main

  385
  MOX plant at Sellafield. The PPP offers timely decision making, but the company cannot wait: the delay in full commissioning has been costing BNFL £1.5 million a month.
  The Government reply stresses the need to take the decision in the light of the latest assessment of the market for MOX and its impact on the economic case for the plant. That is true, but in an ideal world it would be the responsibility of a more commercially attuned board to decide whether it was prudent to press ahead with the opening of the plant and to assess whether the low level of assured customers made the risk of opening worth while. However, we live in the real world: the issue is urgent and requires a decision to be made.
  Safety management at Sellafield has been clarified by the appointment of a director of site operations, and a new team of senior independent safety compliance advisers is being appointed. The company is in the process of demonstrating that all 15 of the HSE's recommendations are being met, and Kansai has lifted its trade moratorium on BNFL. Ministers will retain rights and responsibilities as shareholders, at least for the next few years, and the Select Committee requires progress on a decision on MOX.
  BNFL's importance to the north-west is not only economic. The company has a large presence in community initiatives in the region: last year, it put £5 million into local projects. I should like to thank the 120 BNFL graduate recruits who worked in Westy, the most deprived ward in my constituency, last month. They have made a real difference. Last Saturday, I visited the community centre at St. Margaret's and saw how they have transformed it. People coming to my constituency surgeries now have a wonderfully pleasant environment in which to wait to be heard.
  BNFL makes a great deal of difference in the north-west in many ways. The clean-up across Westy has really improved things for the local community. BNFL is a local and national asset. It needs the active interest of the shareholder and a businesslike attitude from the Government. The taxpayer needs the Government to make timely and effective decisions about the future of BNFL. The company needs to perform excellently in addressing business and safety in the public interest. There should not merely be talk about safety, it should be demonstrated. Systems should be sufficiently transparent to enable people to believe that that is happening.
  The debate allows me to refer to the significance of nuclear energy in achieving our Kyoto targets. The reality of weather changes from global warming have been brought home to hundreds of homes in Britain in the past few weeks. There have been headlines such as, "Chaos As Storms Return", "Storms Batter UK", "Sandbag Sales Rise Along With Water" and "Severe Flood Warnings For More Than 40 Rivers".
  Wild weather in Britain causes misery to people and destruction to property. In the developing nations, thousands die and hundreds of thousands are made homeless. It is a catastrophe in human and economic terms. Hurricane Mitch, which ransacked Nicaragua and Honduras in 1998, caused more than 9,000 deaths. The two tropical cyclones in Mozambique at the beginning of the year left 1 million people homeless and more than 1 million cattle dead, the main form of the economy and the sustenance of people in that country.
  386
  The impact of global warming is not academic. It costs too high a price, and it is people who pay it. Thanks to the evidence of temperature records for 150 years, and information stretching over a millennium from ice caves, corals, tree rings and historical documents, there is no longer a serious argument among scientists about whether the earth is heating up. During the past 100 years, global temperatures have risen by more than half a degree. The seven warmest years on record were in the 1990s, and 1998 was the warmest year in the warmest decade in the warmest century of the millennium.
  Higher temperatures mean that more water evaporates from the earth's surface. Water vapour is an energy source. It cranks up the heat engine that drives the weather. It leads to increasingly violent storms and gives greater energy to hurricanes and cyclones. Indeed, the news becomes worse. If rainstorms are more intense in one place, that means that there is less rain elsewhere. Terrible suffering is caused by drought in some parts of the world. Scientists are predicting that some areas will become steadily dryer as the world warms.
  Nuclear power accounts for about 25 per cent. of Britain's electricity supply. In the past financial year, nuclear energy in the UK avoided the emission of about 79 million tonnes of carbon dioxide. That is equivalent to 50 per cent. of the carbon dioxide emitted by transport on the roads. The industry is critical in managing the balance between demand for energy and protection of the climate.
  As a member of the Select Committee, one of the stranger things that I have seen this year is the Greens in Sweden managing a bizarre political coup. They closed a nuclear power station a decade earlier than planned. What is the most likely way in which they will replace that energy source? The answer is coal-fired production. We must have a realistic energy policy and an investment strategy for the future. Covering our eyes does not make global warming go away, and it is the poorest people on the planet who will pay the highest price.
  8.13 pm
  Mr. David Drew: First, I welcome you to the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am delighted to be able to contribute to this important debate. Various interests have been disclosed, and I should make it clear that I do not come from the north-west. I come from the glorious south-west. The old Magnox headquarters at Berkeley is in my constituency, and the British Energy plant at Barnwood, which is not a million miles away. Another interest is that I went to Denmark a couple of weeks ago, a trip which was paid for partly by the British Wind Energy Association. It may seem strange that I choose to put that on the record. I do so because the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb), was also on the trip.
  I welcome the Select Committee's report, which is balanced, incisive and thought-provoking. The Chairman of the Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill), put the case well. I am sorry that there was a slight disagreement about my view that the UK should have something in particular to offer to nuclear energy. I was not trying to play the nationalistic card. We have an international obligation that I want to see delivered.
  I shall not speak for long because I know that other Labour Members wish to contribute to the debate. However, I wish to outline two over-arching themes that

  387
  demonstrate why it is important that public-private partnership for BNFL is debated, and to consider that within the context of the wider nuclear industry.
  One theme has been well rehearsed already, and that is global warming. That being so, I shall not talk about it at length. However, it is important. There is the integral link between the nuclear industry and renewables. I have always been a supporter of the nuclear industry, and that is not necessarily because I represent many people who work in it. I like to see myself also as a keen supporter of renewables. That is why I went to Denmark. I see my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) in his place, and I think that he and I share an interest of the Globe UK group in that we want to advance renewables. It is important that we try to understand the course that energy provision will take and the way in which the nuclear industry and renewables can be tied within it.
  More important is the reason why I welcome the debate and welcome the Government's increasing commitment to the nuclear industry. It is necessary to retain the basic integrity of the industry. That involves the people who work in it, those who could do so and those who may choose to work in it in future. If we do not keep it buoyant and alive, even at a minimal level of provision, we must consider how decommissioning will take place in the UK and abroad.
  It is essential that we attract the best, the brightest and the most committed people to the industry. I am saddened when the industry is subjected to easy digs. Its very fabric is attacked, including the people who work in it, who support it and are committed to it. That approach is reprehensible because we need these people. I take any opportunity to support them and to speak on their behalf. We are also talking about valuable sites and it is important to consider how we use them and develop them, and not only for nuclear purposes.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Ms Southworth) said, we are talking about a massive industry that accounts for billions of pounds each year, and we underestimate that at our peril. It is a key player in the global provision of energy. Perhaps that has not been made clear so far. We can feel rather proud about the way in which we are working with the Americans through Westinghouse and the new ABB link-up. Within the industry, we have an opportunity to influence what is happening in the developed world and in the less well developed world.
  The debate is about how we can take BNFL to PPP. My hon. Friend the Member for Ochil, the Chairman of the Select Committee, made it clear that PPP has been delayed, but not indefinitely. I am sure that the Minister will talk about timetables. We need to make that clear, if for no one else, for those who are linked to the company: the work force and other stakeholders, one of whom are the Government themselves.
  There is another issue that has not really been brought out: the Government are not only the owner of the company, but the regulator of the industry. It is not crucial to this debate, but it is important that we again put on record that there are not many industries that have two regulators: in this case, the Health and Safety Executive and the nuclear installations inspectorate. There are occasions when tensions between the regulators can grow.
  388
  One of the things that the Minister might want to comment on is: if we move towards the PPP, what will be the regulatory outcome and how will the regulator work in relation to the new company?
  Quite simply, the industry needs to be carefully regulated. We know already that a degree of argument has been advanced—I think that it is fair—about the need for greater transparency. We must build on that, but that can be done only if we have an effective relationship between the company, industry and regulator.
  Increasingly, there is a debate about what way forward we take our energy policy. I feel strongly that one of the things that the Government could do—this was a failure of the previous Government—is to make clear what our energy policy is, and what the different component parts should be. Again, I pay tribute to the Trade and Industry Committee. In one of its earlier reports, it intimated how crucial it was that we took that debate forward and were clear about the different component parts.
  We cannot have it every which way. We must be clear that, if we are going to move from the current component parts—approximately speaking, one third is nuclear, one third is fossil fuel via coal, and one third is fossil fuel via gas, with a small amount made up of renewables; thankfully a growing amount—and to look forward to the next 20 to 30 years, we must make up our minds. If we are not going to be able genuinely to get renewables into some acceptable framework, so that they are a genuine contributor of some size to energy provision, we will have a massive shortfall. The advantage of nuclear is that it gives head room, not just in this country, but in the wider world, on how to think our way through the way that we need to go.
  I totally oppose the idea that gas alone can pick up the shortfall. There are projections that, if we do not get it right, gas will grow to potentially 60 per cent. of provision. For all sorts of reasons, it will not deal with the global warming problem or, more particularly, with the problem of our misuse of a valuable resource. We need to recognise how—if can move forward—nuclear has an important part to play, but we need to link that with renewables.
  I would like to see the day—I have mentioned it to the company, so it is nothing new—when, alongside nuclear provision, we have wind turbines and perhaps some biomass not far away, linking that with solar energy, so that we can genuinely see that energy can be provided efficiently, effectively, safely and in an environmentally acceptable way. If we can do it in this country, it can happen elsewhere.
  From the company, we are looking for a clear statement of its strategy. In its last report, it provided that. It has begun to reveal the ways in which it wishes to take things onward. As has been mentioned, it has a new chairman and a new chief executive. It is restructuring itself, so that it can move forward in such a way that it achieves not only the trust that needs to be built, but the efficiency that it needs to be able to prove. In that way, it can show that the industry has a future.
  This is also about the way in which the Government have to respond. As I have said, the Government wear several different hats. They are not just the owner of BNFL, but BNFL's regulator and the employer of many thousands of people. That puts many obligations at their door. As I have intimated, they must also look at their international obligations.

  389
  We can be critical about some of the things that have happened in the nuclear industry, but one of the things that we have done that is pleasing—again it is not widely known—has been to help the Ukrainians, formerly the Soviet Union, through the disaster of Chernobyl. I know that the Government have made available considerable sums of money to help the industry there to work through its obvious difficulties.
  We cannot pretend that, if we do not get our energy policy right, the rest of the world, particularly the less developed world, can do anything other than copy our mistakes. Therefore, it is important that we have—as we are having today—a full and fruitful debate and look at the ways in which we can genuinely move the debate forward, not just here, but internationally.
  I want us to have high environmental standards. The whole point about the industry is that, although it can be criticised in many respects for some of the things that have gone wrong, anyone who goes on to a nuclear site can never fail to be impressed by the degree of safety, the security and the way in which it takes seriously its environmental obligations. We must recognise that we must meet the obligations under the Ospar—Oslo and Paris—convention. We must deal with the problem of technetium and so forth, but that can be done only if the industry is given time and space to move forward appropriately, rather than being continually pushed down and out.
  That is the obligation that we have. It is an obligation that we should have to the work force and to the rest of the stakeholders. That is why it would be useful if the Government, even if they would not go as far as to say that they would consider new build, looked at the options—in the next 20 to 30 years, we must get an effective policy together in terms of energy provision. That is something that we can begin to do now. I am sure that the Minister will think hard about that and make an appropriate response.
  8.27 pm
  Mr. David Chaytor: I welcome you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to your new appointment.
  I found the Select Committee report extremely interesting. It reflects great credit on my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill) and his colleagues on the Committee. I pay tribute to him, to the way in which he introduced the debate, and to the measured way in which he balanced the various arguments that must be considered.
  My first point is little to do with the BNFL PPP itself; it is to do with the process by which Parliament has considered the issue of BNFL and the whole nuclear industry over many years. I find it remarkable that, given the size of the industry, the number of people employed in it and the economic impact in many parts of the United Kingdom, particularly the north-west, where my constituency is located, there has been so little debate about and scrutiny of BNFL and the rest of the nuclear industry in the past 30 years.
  I think that the rot set in—it must be said—in 1979. In the 1970s, under Governments of both parties—the 1970–74 Government and the two Labour Governments who followed—there was considerable debate about the industry, but once we got into the 1980s it was almost as if Government and Parliament abdicated their
  390
  responsibility completely. That is important. It says something about the way in which we as a nation and as a Parliament deal with questions of science. I would draw analogies with the way in which we have dealt with BSE, and the way in which we are struggling to deal with GM technology, and perhaps even with stem cell research.
  There are serious lessons for the Government—who are, I know, taking the matter seriously—for Parliament and for all of us as Members of the House about how we deal with scientific issues. We have tended to find them difficult and to run away from them. We have tended to assume that science was best dealt with by the scientists. That has been the root cause of many of the problems of public policy in recent years—certainly in the case of BSE—and of many of the difficulties that BNFL and the nuclear industry have experienced.
  There is a wider issue relating to public policy. In Britain, our tendency is to exclude debate once a line has been agreed. If we look back at the history of BNFL, particularly the history of THORP and reprocessing, there is no question but that a consensus was established, arguably driven by the needs of the Ministry of Defence to generate stocks of plutonium in the earlier years of the cold war. The consensus was established by the figures that mattered—the scientific establishment, the MOD and the sponsored department of the Department of Trade and Industry—that THORP and reprocessing were the way forward.
  Because that was an investment of such enormous size and scale, even though other voices were arguing against it, the juggernaut of the political, military and industrial establishment could not be stopped. If we look back now over the past 20 or 30 years, we will see that that was one of the most gigantic mistakes of public policy that any Parliament has made. If we were going back to the 1970s, would we go ahead with THORP and start again with reprocessing? I suspect not. There are serious lessons to be learned about the way that we, as a democracy, handle complicated issues of science.
  Representing a constituency in the north-west, I know that this is an important and sensitive issue for many of my hon. Friends, particularly my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham). I have the luxury of not having a nuclear establishment in my constituency, although I have companies that supply the nuclear industry. That luxury perhaps allows me to be a little more detached and dispassionate about some of the issues relating to BNFL than might otherwise be the case.
  There is an enormous paradox about BNFL. As many of my hon. Friends have said, the company undoubtedly contains one of the largest concentrations of scientific expertise anywhere in the world. As a hugely enthusiastic supporter of British science and of the need continually to extend the boundaries of scientific research, I want that body of expertise to thrive. The proposal that we are considering, for a PPP with 51 per cent. of the shares remaining with the Government, is an effective way of achieving that, subject to certain conditions.
  However, the industry has been incredibly dishonest, hugely damaging in environmental terms, and hugely profligate with public funds. We must recognise that billions and billions of pounds of taxpayers' money have gone into subsidising the nuclear industry over the years, and will continue to subsidise it throughout the next century. That is an extremely important point. It explains why BNFL has liabilities of £27 billion in its accounts.

  391
  There is, therefore, the paradox of that aspect of the industry, and the enormous technical expertise attached to it, which is vital to the future of this country, to the many employees in the north-west, and, to many countries throughout the world, because nuclear clean-up and decommissioning is a burning issue not only in the United Kingdom and parts of western Europe, but particularly in the United States and, most worryingly of all, in the former Soviet Union. British Nuclear Fuels has the potential to be a leading player in the programme of nuclear clean-up and decommissioning that is getting under way.
  I do not believe—in this, I agree completely with the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell)—that the future of the company lies in reprocessing or in the international plutonium trade. The Select Committee report identified some of the assumptions on which the nuclear reprocessing industry was initially established: the need for plutonium because of the cold war—that may not have been specifically mentioned in the report—the expectation that the price of uranium would rise, and a scenario in which nuclear power would continue to expand, possibly because of concern about oil prices after 1973–74.
  One by one, all those assumptions have been proved obsolete. In 2000, it is difficult to see the rationale for nuclear reprocessing. Why do we take spent nuclear fuel from power stations at the other end of the planet, ship it across the world, separate it out and store the plutonium in the north-west of England? I understand that that gives us some advantage in terms of foreign currency, and that it creates employment for many people in the north-west, especially in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland, but we must ask ourselves what we are doing it for, particularly now that the consensus is that plutonium is not an asset, but waste.
  The end of the cold war changed the value of plutonium at a stroke. That is why the Science and Technology Committee of the House of Lords last year recommended that much of the British plutonium stock should be declared waste, with only a small strategic reserve being kept.
  We have spoken of mountains of plutonium and molehills of plutonium. Let us get the facts right. We currently have a stock of 60 tonnes of plutonium. By 2015, that stock will increase to almost 120 tonnes. It is all in the north-west of England, on the edge of the Lake district, and it is the biggest concentration anywhere on this planet of the most dangerous substance known to human beings.
  Dr. Ladyman: I must tackle my hon. Friend on that point, which he has mentioned twice. There is absolutely no objective criterion according to which plutonium can be described in that way. I can give him the name of naturally occurring, growing substances called lectins that are even more toxic than plutonium. He exaggerates. If he wants constructive scientific debate, as he said earlier—and I fully agree with him about that—we must conduct it on the basis of the facts, not on the basis of exaggeration.
  Mr. Chaytor: If plutonium is not dangerous, why have all the leading nations signed the nuclear non-proliferation
  392
  treaty precisely to reduce stocks of plutonium and to eliminate the risk of the theft of plutonium and the obtaining of plutonium stockpiles by terrorist groups? Other substances may well be equally dangerous, but plutonium remains one of the most dangerous substances on the planet, which all the leading nations of the world, including the United Kingdom, are determined to ensure is stored safely to avoid proliferation. It is difficult to appeal to other countries to control their stocks of nuclear weapons while we generate more and more stockpiles of plutonium.
  Reprocessing does not have a future. The Select Committee's report is right to recommend that the Government make their policy on reprocessing clear. It would have been better had the previous Government done so, in which case we might not have been in quite the mess that we are. On the other hand, it would make sense for the Government not to do that, and simply to allow market forces to take their course. If anything will bring the reprocessing industry to an end, it is the partial privatisation of BNFL.
  Dr. Jack Cunningham: My hon. Friend talks as though successive British Governments had somehow been reckless. With regard to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, all the safeguards in respect of that and Euratom are in place at Sellafield and have been for a long time. My hon. Friend also talks as though only Britain did reprocessing, and that if we stopped doing it at Sellafield, reprocessing would somehow go away. He should bear in mind the fact that the Japanese have just awarded 650 tonnes worth of reprocessing business to the French at Cap de la Hague.
  Mr. Chaytor: I understand that perfectly well. I understand that only Britain, France and Japan, and possibly Russia, are interested in reprocessing, or see it as a valuable activity. It is significant that the United States withdrew from reprocessing some years ago. In Japan, the question of reprocessing is hugely problematical. The Japanese have been attempting to build their own reprocessing site for many years, and it will be some years before it is completed. Public opinion in Japan, as in western Europe, is steadily turning against the further expansion of nuclear power, and is certainly increasingly critical of the reprocessing industry and the international plutonium trade.
  I do not deny the points that my right hon. Friend makes. I simply say that we must put the matter in its international context. At the moment, the United Kingdom and France are the only countries seriously committed to reprocessing. I suspect that market forces in the United Kingdom will gradually lead to the winding down of the reprocessing industry. Part of the evidence for that is the memo from British Energy in its submission to the Committee's inquiry, and the further briefing papers that British Energy distributed before the debate.
  There has been some criticism of British Energy. I hold no brief for British Energy, but there has been some criticism to the effect that it must understand that it cannot abrogate contracts. In its defence, that is not what I understand it to be saying. It is saying that it wants to renegotiate contracts. There are perfectly respectable precedents for the renegotiation of contracts, particularly when there are mutual advantages.

  393
  That brings me back to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil in reply to my intervention, when he said that the comparative costs of reprocessing and storage are matters of opinion, not evidence. I must disagree with him, because there is now a body of evidence, part of which was produced by Dr. MacKerron, who made an important submission to the Committee and whom my hon. Friend mentioned earlier in glowing terms.
  Dr. MacKerron's work at Sussex university has demonstrated that the renegotiation of the reprocessing contracts as storage contracts would have a mutually beneficial result. There would be money for British Energy and for BNFL. In that sense, renegotiation of existing reprocessing contracts seems to be a win-win situation. It is a sign of our collective political and industrial inertia that we find it so difficult to accept criticism and to accept that we have made mistakes, so it is difficult to turn policy round, even when the facts are staring us in the face.
  I understand the urgency with which hon. Members who support the Sellafield MOX plant want the Government to respond, and the interest in the matter. There have been a number of consultations and inquiries into the viability of the MOX plant. I understand that the Government's position is that approval for the MOX plant, which is the responsibility of the Deputy Prime Minister, will be granted purely according to the criterion of commercial viability. As of four weeks ago, the MOX plant was not commercially viable. BNFL had committed £300 million to building it in advance of obtaining authorisation to operate it.
  That in itself raises interesting questions about the provisions of the Radioactive Substances Act 1993. It is astonishing, and I cannot think of a parallel in any other industry. What other industry would allow a company to build such a plant without approval to operate it? The sum of £300 million was committed, but, because of the errors at the MOX demonstration facility, and the falsification of fuel data, we are committed to spending another £100 million to bring fuel back from Japan.
  Huge amounts of what are essentially public funds have been committed in advance of any evidence that the MOX plant will be commercially viable. I recollect that the inquiry by the PA Consulting Group argued that there was a commercial future for MOX only on the assumption that the £300 million initial capital investment would be regarded as sunk costs. That is crazy economics, and all too typical of the accounting procedures in British Nuclear Fuels for many years.
  I understand the reasons for the company's strenuous efforts to secure the Japanese business, but it would be amazing if it got the 100 per cent. of contracts that it needs for commercial viability. Even if it succeeded, and announced in a few weeks that it had a full work load for MOX, that contracts had been signed and sealed and that the Government should therefore grant approval, there is an overwhelming argument against the international plutonium trade that MOX represents.
  The issue should be debated more widely, and the public should be fully aware of the implications of the plutonium trade. We are shipping spent fuel from Japan to the United Kingdom, separating the uranium and the plutonium, mixing them together in ceramic pellets, and shipping it back halfway across the planet so that it can be burnt again in Japan. It then generates more spent fuel
  394
  and more high-level waste, which is shipped back to the United Kingdom. That is the energy policy of the madhouse. In relation to the environment, or a rational energy policy, there is no argument for constructing such an elaborate, expensive, complicated and dangerous process simply to keep the nuclear industry going.
  Let us consider the Oslo and Paris convention, which some hon. Members have already mentioned. Every member of the European Union in the Ospar convention—except, understandably, Britain and France—voted for the recent recommendation that reprocessing should be phased out. We should bear in mind the strength of feeling against reprocessing in all the other European countries. It is not surprising. Countries such as Iceland and Norway depend to a large extent on the purity and clarity of the waters of the North sea, because so much of their economy is based on fishing. When they find that, hundreds of miles north of Sellafield, technetium-99 is contaminating their fish stocks, it should not surprise us that they support an end to reprocessing. All the parties in Northern Ireland, and Ireland itself, also support that, because of the impact on their waters and fish stocks.
  Let us consider the BNFL response to Ospar. When the Ospar conference at Sintra in Portugal reported its decision to aim for discharges that were close to zero by 2020, the management of BNFL issued a statement that that would be no problem. It said that it was possible to achieve that through abatement technology, and that it intended to meet the target. However, 1 understand that more recently, the BNFL position has changed, and that its submission to the current Environment Agency consultation on discharges takes a more hawkish line. It claims that it cannot possibly meet the Ospar requirements on discharges. I should be grateful if my right hon. Friend the Minister could comment on that; if she cannot do so now, perhaps she will say something later. The BNFL view of Ospar is important. Can the company comply, and what will it cost to do so? If it says that it cannot, where does that leave reprocessing?
  Several hon. Members have argued that we should continue, or expand, the use of nuclear energy because of the Kyoto protocol and because burning uranium does not directly lead to CO2 emissions. That is perfectly true, but the fact that there is no direct link does not mean that the nuclear industry is not responsible, through its other processes, for a considerable volume of CO2 emissions. We need to view the situation in a wider context.
  I am sceptical about the sudden conversion of BNFL and other parts of the nuclear industry to being clean and green. The industry's history shows that different justifications have been used in different decades to defend the industry's future. As each decade passed and the initial justification was undermined, it was quietly dropped and a new justification emerged. Arguing that nuclear power is needed to meet the Kyoto targets is the latest of those justifications.
  Interestingly, when the conference of the parties to the Kyoto protocol meets next week and the week after in The Hague to discuss the precise ways in which the protocol will be implemented, the EU position in the negotiations on the clean development mechanism, which is supported by the UK Government, will clearly state that nuclear energy has no role whatever in that mechanism. I welcome that and hope that our and the EU negotiators will stick to it. It clearly demonstrates that the understanding throughout the EU is that although the

  395
  nuclear industry provides fewer direct CO2, emissions, it does not represent a solution to the problem of reducing carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions.
  We briefly discussed the renewable nature of nuclear energy. Some people argue that nuclear energy is renewable, but they forget that its renewable dimension involves the fast breeder reactor. Research on the fast breeder reactor stopped in Britain in 1994 and in France shortly thereafter. Worldwide, only Japan continues with such research. Conceivably, the fast breeder reactor could, perhaps in many decades' time, produce a completely renewable form of nuclear energy.
  When it is argued that renewables cannot take the place of nuclear energy, we should remember that nuclear energy currently provides 20 to 25 per cent. of our electricity. The Government have a target of getting 10 per cent. of electricity from renewables by 2010, by which time the closure of the Magnox stations will be reducing the total proportion of power generated by nuclear energy. The likely scenario in 2012 or 2013 is that there will be no reason why we cannot meet our renewables targets. In view of the enormous increase in renewables technology in recent years, I suspect that those targets will be easier to meet than was previously thought. By the early years of the next decade, the proportion of electricity generated by nuclear energy and that generated by renewables could be more or less the same.
  We must accept that nuclear energy has a role to play, but that it is likely to be significantly smaller. The growth in energy use will unquestionably involve renewables, hydrogen, photovoltaics, biomass and the exploitation of wind and waves. To defend, or to justify an expansion of, the nuclear industry on the ground that renewables cannot replace the existing proportion of electricity generated by nuclear energy is simply not sustainable.
  I support the Government's approach to BNFL. They deserve enormous credit for advancing the PPP plan, which is not revolutionary—it was envisaged when the company was established under the Atomic Energy Authority Act1. The 51–49 per cent. split meant that primary legislation was not necessary to establish such a partnership, which meant that the matter could be approached slightly more secretively than would otherwise have been the case. I hope that our Government will not do that, and that there will be ample opportunity to debate the details of the partial privatisation in the months ahead.
  The key question is: what is going to be privatised? My concern is that when the PPP is constructed the taxpayer should not be left with all the liabilities. The temptation, especially if there is little interest in the City because of the enormous liabilities attaching to BNFL, will be to do some hiving off and separation. The taxpayer will pick up the liabilities and the new PPP company will gain all the assets and lucrative work for the future. In my view, and in the view of an increasing number people across a wide spectrum, the future for BNFL is not in reprocessing, the international plutonium trade or attempting to expand what is rapidly becoming obsolete technology, but in the massive task of nuclear clean-up and decommissioning across the world.
  If I may come back to where I started, I believe that there will be a reduction in nuclear energy in the years ahead. I do not want nuclear technology to be shut
  396
  down—far from it; keeping all scientific options open is far too important for that. Prolonging the life of 50-year-old nuclear reactors will not significantly increase our scientific knowledge. Nevertheless, I want to maintain those high level skills in Britain and I want British scientists to work on ways of finding more efficient and safer forms of nuclear power, if that is possible. I am sceptical about that, as there have been 50 years of nuclear power, and unlimited public funds have gone into it. Although I want to keep that option open, I recognise that the way forward for the company is to focus on clean-up and decommissioning work.
  Finally, I shall comment briefly on one or two details in the report and ask for a response from my right hon. Friend the Minister. First, paragraph 45 on page xix states:
  In the course of our abbreviated inquiry, we have not sought to explore the relationship between BNFL and the Ministry of Defence…and its agencies.
  That is an enormous pity, as the original driving force for BNFL was the relationship with the Ministry of Defence, which is one of the most interesting and secretive areas of public life. Sooner or later, someone should cast a little light on that relationship. The MOD's imperative of generating a national plutonium stockpile, long after that was justified by the demands of the cold war—if it ever was—has led us into an enormous error of public policy through the focus on reprocessing.
  Secondly, paragraph 47 on page 20 refers to the study by Touche Ross in 1993, which was supposed to be among the evidence that led to the approval of THORP. As I recollect, the Touche Ross study did not exist, and nobody has proved that it did. People working under the auspices of Touche Ross may have considered such matters, but there was no written report that could conceivably be described as a study. I should be grateful if my right hon. Friend would comment on that.
  Paragraph 72 on page xxvi states:
  Reprocessing of Magnox fuel—to which it is now …generally accepted that there is no safe alternative.
  I do not think that that is true, as a number of scientists accept that it is possible to store Magnox fuel, although not indefinitely. I understand that Magnox fuel is stored on at least one of the nuclear sites in Britain—presumably safely.
  I am interested in a contradiction in the report. Section C, on page 81, mentions the THORP order book and refers to
  over half of the second decade quantity contracted,
  whereas on page 103 it says that that amounts to a
  little over 40 per cent.
  I think that the "over half' reference is the figure from the company, and the "little over 40 per cent." figure is from Dr. MacKerron of Sussex university. It would be helpful if at some point—I am sure that my right hon. Friend will not be able to deal with it tonight—that contradiction between the exact quantity of fuel contracted could be resolved.
  The report has done a service to the cause of open debate about energy policy in the United Kingdom. It has done a service to the company, because the secrecy in which it has operated for some years has done it and the industry no good. I echo the call by other hon. Members for greater transparency and openness in the future.
  The report is a substantial and measured document. It forces the Government to announce their policy in various key areas. We cannot merely leave matters to drift, and I

  397
  welcome the fact that the Government have now taken their shareholder responsibilities seriously. I hope that my right hon. Friend will give detailed responses to all the points that have been raised when she replies to the debate.
  9.2 pm
  Dr. Rudi Vis: I add my congratulations to you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  I enjoyed listening to the Chairman of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill). I am pleased to be called to speak in the debate because I have strong feelings about these issues, and because I have been vilified in many BNFL internal memorandums concerning the protracted fight about the parking of carriages containing spent nuclear fuel in Cricklewood in my constituency.
  I shall make a few introductory comments to explain my views about the proposed public-private partnership. BNFL does four things: cleaning up and decommissioning, storage, research and nuclear reprocessing. The Committee's ninth report spells that out. It is good at cleaning up and decommissioning and research—it could be a world leader in that highly profitable area of its work. It could do better and more on storage. However, it is without doubt guilty of covering up errors in some of its work on nuclear reprocessing. It treats the public with contempt; it has compromised safety and security; it cheats and worse; it is secretive; and it suffers from a corporate arrogance that has no match in this country or abroad. It is also apparent that the nuclear installations inspectorate—the industry's regulatory body—is weak.
  BNFL's public affairs department, which advises the board on how to pull the wool over the public's eyes—and, I believe, over the Government's eyes—has a budget of £18 million a year. I am sorry that my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) disagrees with me, but I believe that the jury is still out on any real improvements in management.
  If I had to declare an interest, it would be that I am a lifelong member of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, and I am proud of it. However, it may come as a surprise to learn that I wish an open and accountable BNFL the very best, but only on condition that it stops nuclear reprocessing at the earliest opportunity. In other words, if that condition were met, I would vote in favour of a public-private partnership for BNFL, but, if it were not, I would vote against it. I believe that, although it is the Government's responsibility to have total control over nuclear reprocessing, fundamentally—as we heard earlier in the debate—there is no rationale for nuclear reprocessing.
  My entanglement with BNFL started in late summer 1998. I was informed through the grapevine—not directly—that BNFL would start parking spent nuclear waste in trains in sidings in Cricklewood. I was alarmed about that, as were those who lived there and would see the trains parked 30 yd from their homes. I therefore contacted BNFL at its stall at the Labour conference and I invited its representatives to come to a meeting in my constituency for discussions.
  BNFL's representatives came to the meeting, on 13 October 1998. However, they came not to discuss the matter, but to railroad it through. I told them exactly what I thought of them, and I had the full support of a very
  398
  angry meeting. Since then, thousands of residents have become involved in the matter, under the magnificent leadership of Mrs. Linda Hayes, a local resident who has worked tirelessly on the issue for many years. The anger was enhanced because clearly we had not been told the truth.
  I shall explain how I believe that events developed, and, later, I shall ask my right hon. Friend the Minister some questions on some details. The English, Welsh and Scottish Freight Rail Company—EWS—was born of the chaos created by the Tories on privatising rail freight. EWS won the contract to transport spent nuclear waste via its compound in Willesden, in north-west London, to Sellafield. Some time later, BNFL set up a wholly owned subsidiary company—Direct Rail Services, or DRS—which, most surprisingly, won the contract to transport spent nuclear waste, beating EWS.
  The EWS board must have smelt a rat, because it suggested to BNFL and to DRS that it was minded to throw DRS out of the controlled compound in Willesden. BNFL panicked and, in a hurry, found wholly unprotected, massively large railway sidings in Cricklewood. BNFL thought that it could just walk over the people in Cricklewood, and merely informed the wrong Member of Parliament—the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), who is now London's Mayor—of what it was going to do. To this day, the hon. Gentleman denies that he was informed by BNFL.
  Residents in the area established Cricklewood Against Nuclear Trains—CANT. After feverish activity led by Mrs. Linda Hayes, and with exceptional support from many others, including me, BNFL panicked again and asked us if we would agree to discuss matters with an intermediary green group, the Environment Council. We agreed to discussions, but we were not going to give in. After a year and a half of meetings, in March 2000 BNFL withdrew its plans to park spent nuclear waste trains in Cricklewood. Cricklewood Against Nuclear Trains was renamed, Communities Against Nuclear Trains.
  BNFL withdrew to the former EWS compound in Willesden—about which I shall ask a question in a moment. I do not know what price BNFL had to pay to EWS to persuade it to allow it back into the Willesden sidings. However, to my mind, no community should have to put up with the fear of such trains being parked in densely built-up urban housing areas. Those trains should not be allowed to pass through London, or, for that matter, through any urban area. Better still, we should get rid of nuclear reprocessing, which is totally unnecessary. BNFL would be a healthier and more profitable company if, over time, it were to abandon all reprocessing. There are now national negotiations to reach agreement on how to improve BNFL's environmental performance.
  Both BNFL and CANT learned a lot, and, after the Cricklewood saga, we parted much wiser, friendlier and relieved. Therefore, it was with surprise that, a few months later, I received a whole wad of internal BNFL memorandums, which were probably leaked by a concerned BNFL employee. I was mentioned many times in those memorandums, and not in a very flattering way. It is now my particular pleasure to record the contents of only one of those bizarre memos in Hansard. It was sent by Mr. Rupert Wilcox-Baker, the public relations head of BNFL, to the then BNFL chairman, Sir John Guinness. It is dated 16 March 1999. It is, as I have said, only one of many: I have them all.

  399
  I shall have to make one change when I read out the memo. A Member of Parliament is mentioned by name, so I shall have to refer to him by his constituency.
  The memo reads:
  Thank you for your memo dated 15 March concerning Rudi Vis MP.
  We have had a number of meetings with Rudi Vis and he has made it very clear that he is determined to get us out of Cricklewood and to stop us transporting spent fuel.
  The memo goes on to say that the "insight" of my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller)
  into Vis's rationale is interesting but I suspect what he is seeing is a hangover from Vis's "old Labour" background. He is a long-time member of CND and has stated privately to us his abhorrence of all things nuclear. Regarding the suggestion that we try to get a senior local Jewish figure on side and then arrange a meeting, I have some doubts. However valid our arguments and those of the potential third party advocate I suspect Vis will find it hard to alter his position. All we might hope for is perhaps the development of a more respectful hostility!
  Whilst Rudi Vis is not himself Jewish his father helped Jewish families during the last war in Alkmaar, Holland, where Vis was born in 1941. Therefore, with that in mind and the make up of his constituency the Jewish influence will be strong. I would propose that we ensure that this section of the local community is fully represented in the dialogue process and I will check this point with the Environment Council which is managing the process. In this way, if we can satisfy the local community representatives, through the dialogue process, then this should have included all important sectors of that community.
  Will the Minister tell me why BNFL seems to need £18 million annually for its public affairs department, and whether the Government can call in internal memos from that department? Will she also tell me whether she can look into why Direct Rail Services, a wholly owned subsidiary of BNFL, won the contract over EWS—without having had any way of carrying out the work before—to transport spent nuclear waste? Finally, will she tell me what BNFL/DRS now pays to EWS following the return to Willesden?
  I am not the only Member of Parliament whom BNFL has secretly tried to undermine. I wonder what the costs of such activities have been to BNFL, but I am not annoyed. I wish BNFL the very best—with the proviso that, if we had come to the end of the line in regard to nuclear processing, we would become a much safer country in a much safer world.
  9.15 pm
  Dr. Stephen Ladyman: I, too, welcome you to the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  Perhaps I should begin by declaring an interest. I have no constituency interest, but in my younger days I was a radiation biologist, and my PhD is in radiation in the environment; so I think I can claim some technical knowledge of some of the issues we are discussing.
  My hon. Friends the Members for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) and for Finchley and Golders Green (Dr. Vis) were right to speak of the need for openness and debate, but we must have that debate on the basis of the facts, without exaggeration, and ensuring that everyone knows all the issues. I do not know about the shunting of trains in Cricklewood, but I can tell my hon. Friend the
  400
  Member for Finchley and Golders Green that the moving of radioactive material through his constituency poses zero risk to any of his constituents. I can also tell him that radioactive materials have been transported for more than 16 million miles over the last few years without causing one serious life-threatening incident.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North spoke of the threat posed by technetium in the North sea. An eminent Danish scientist has calculated that if a Danish fish-lover ate 50 kg of fish and 20 kg of shellfish each year that had been caught in the Danish seas, where the concentration of technetium is highest, he would experience an annual radiation dose of 0.14 millisieverts. One is exposed to 0.3 mSv of radiation by staying in a Danish house for one hour. That is the relative risk from technetium in the seas around Scandinavia.
  Mr. Chaytor: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Dr. Ladyman: No, I am afraid that there is too little time.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North said that plutonium was the most toxic chemical known, but that is simply not true. I can extract from kidney beans a compound that is more toxic than plutonium, but people will still be happy to eat kidney beans with their chilli con carne in the restaurant tonight.
  There is no doubt that plutonium is toxic, but for people to be affected they need to be near it, or ingest it, or breathe it in. Alpha radiation has such a short range that it cannot even pierce skin. If we are to have the rational debate that this matter deserves, we need to place such facts in the public domain.
  Before I go on to the main points in my speech, Madam Deputy Speaker, may I apologise to the House on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Brown)? Parliamentary business means that he cannot be here tonight, but his constituents at Chapelcross are very anxious that new nuclear capacity be built there, as the local Magnox station is licensed only to the end of the decade.
  I want to focus on the environmental issues. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North said that there were no environmental justifications for nuclear power. I completely disagree, and a look at the royal commission report into climate change will show why. The report presented four ways in which we might address the problem of global climate change by 2050.
  First, the report suggested that this country hold energy consumption at 1998 levels for 50 years. That would be a huge task, but it is the easiest of the four scenarios that the report postulates. Even so, it requires that nuclear power be used to generate some of the energy that would be needed in 2050.
  Two of the other three scenarios would require a reduction in energy consumption of 36 per cent. from the 1998 level. No one has any idea of how that might be done. One of those two scenarios proposes that, if we did not use nuclear power to provide the needed energy, we would have to increase the use of renewables by a factor of 18—and no one has a clue about how to do that.

  401
  As an environmentalist, I can tell the House that such an increase in the use of renewables would have environmental consequences. Tidal barrages create huge environmental problems: silt settles and fish die when the energy is taken out of waves.
  Mr. Malcolm Savidge: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Dr. Ladyman: I am afraid that there is too little time left.
  The royal commission's fourth scenario does not require nuclear power, but it does call for a reduction in energy consumption of nearly 50 per cent., and even the commission said that it could not see any way to achieve that.
  Anyone who has studied global warming has accepted that, on the balance of probabilities—and some scientists believe that the matter is beyond reasonable doubt—global warming is caused by greenhouse gases. We can meet our Kyoto reduction targets only by retaining a significant nuclear element in our energy production.
  Mr. Savidge: Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?
  Dr. Ladyman: No. I am sorry, but my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North spoke for 34 minutes. That is why I must rush now.
  The simple fact is that, if we want to tackle global warming, we have to have a nuclear element in our energy mix for the foreseeable future. That means that we need new nuclear build.
  So far as the public-private partnership is concerned, we have in BNFL a world-leading team. I am the first to say that it has made some huge mistakes. I have been saying for the past two years that its watchword should be"openness". BNFL should tell us everything in future. If it tells us that it has made a mistake, that is bad; if Greenpeace or some other environmental group finds out and tells us, that is a disaster. BNFL has to be open in everything that it does. We have to get the private discipline into that organisation so that we have some real, solid, good management techniques to make sure that it is building for the future.
  Not only do we need BNFL's expertise if we are to replace our nuclear capacity, but there is a huge task to be performed in the former Soviet republics. There is a bill to be picked up for cleaning the former Soviet countries of £1 billion. By that I mean a British billion, because when I was little I was told that a billion was a million million and then the Americans said that it was a thousand million. Well, I am talking about a million million pounds worth of clean-up to be done. We have only just scratched the surface. The only company in the entire world with the expertise to show us how to do that and to capitalise on it is BNFL.
  For goodness' sake, let us start moving on building the public-private partnership. Let us accept that many of the errors discovered at BNFL were discovered because of the preparations for the PPP. Let us make sure that BNFL is equipped for the future, to make sure that we really can have the option of new nuclear capacity, because I believe that it is the only way to address global warming.
  402
  Global warming will not kill the environment of the world. It will happen because we leave environmental policy either to the ostriches, who would like to pretend that global warming is not caused by greenhouse gases, or to the witch doctors, who refuse to accept that science and technology is the way to think ourselves out of this problem.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: I call Mr. Gibb.
  9.22 pm
  Mr. Nick Gibb: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I should like to add my welcome to you to the Chair.
  As the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) pointed out, he and I, and other members of the renewable energy group, went to Denmark recently to see wind energy at its best. We went at the expense of National Wind Power, a subsidiary of National Power. Denmark produces 13 per cent. of its power by wind. I also spent two days recently at Sellafield, where I received from BNFL the same briefing as the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell).
  I congratulate the hon. Member for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill) and other members of the Trade and Industry Committee on an excellent report on BNFL. It was both balanced and well informed, and follows other reports by the Select Committee focusing on energy issues. The report published in June 1998, in particular, focused specifically on energy policy.
  It is commendable that the Select Committee is taking energy policy seriously. These issues matter. They go to the root of our industrial competitiveness and to the heart of our environmental policy. That is in sharp contrast to the Government, whose energy policy is in complete disarray. Their only major pronouncement on policy was the 1998 energy White Paper. Everyone knows that that was simply an exercise in trying to justify—albeit unsuccessfully—the gas moratorium, a decision now reversed, which was motivated entirely by internal Labour party considerations. It has cost industry millions of pounds in higher electricity prices and will lead to millions of tonnes of additional CO2 emissions.
  Nuclear power today provides 30 per cent. of our electricity consumption. It does so without emitting CO2 and is thus a highly environmentally friendly source of energy. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) and the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), whose constituency includes the Sellafield site, pointed out, nuclear energy saves 79 million tonnes of CO2 being emitted into the atmosphere every year.
  The concerns about nuclear energy are focused on safety and on what to do with nuclear waste. We share those concerns.
  The Select Committee recognised in its earlier report on energy that it would be wrong to allow those concerns to lead to a dogmatic abandonment of nuclear power. As the hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) explained well, if we are serious about our international commitments under Kyoto to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to a level 12.5 per cent. below 1990 levels

  403
  by 2008–12and—this is the important point—to keep them at that level beyond 2012, it would be foolish to rule out nuclear energy.
  Our goal must be to have a balanced and secure energy policy, which enables us to meet our carbon dioxide targets. At present, 30 per cent. of our electricity comes from nuclear sources, 30 per cent. from gas and 30 per cent. from coal. The switch from coal to gas in the past 10 years will enable us to achieve a 15 per cent. reduction in CO2 emissions by the end of this year. From this year onwards however, the Government's figures show an increase in greenhouse gas emissions. From 2010, the increase will become steep.
  The key factor, as other hon. Members have said, is the decommissioning of the old Magnox power stations in the next decade, as they account for about 8 per cent. of electricity production. Replacing that plant, even with gas, will still result in significantly higher carbon dioxide emissions.
  Huge increases in the demand for electricity are also expected. Any notion that we can reduce our demand is nonsense. The increases will principally be caused by the internet. The Financial Times recently reported that demand for electricity in London alone would increase by 20 per cent. in the next four years, solely due to the building of 10 internet hotels there.
  The draft climate change programme published by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions showed that, far from our achieving a 12.5 per cent. or a 20 per cent. reduction, CO2 levels would be at or just below 1990 levels by 2020, which would represent a significant increase compared with the present level.
  Therefore, we have a significant problem to tackle—a problem that is made worse by the decision to delay for three years the building of new gas-fired plant. It is encouraging to note that in a written answer on 30 October the Government abandoned any pretence that the gas moratorium was linked to reforms in the electricity market, when they said that the stricter consent policy would be lifted this month, notwithstanding the fact that the new electricity trading arrangements would not be up and running until March next year.
  We need a serious and considered energy policy from the Government—one that is balanced and secure, taking into account the decommissioning of the Magnox stations, recent hikes in the price of gas and new developments in clean coal technology such as integrated combined cycle gasification, and tackling the nuclear issue without any ideological baggage.
  The core of the debate is that if we as a nation are serious about fulfilling our long-term international CO2 obligations, we have a choice between pushing up the proportion of electricity generated from renewable sources to way beyond the Government's present targets, which would result in significantly higher electricity prices, and dealing with the nuclear issue.
  Mr. Savidge: Members of the Environmental Audit Committee asked a number of leading experts from this country, such as the Round Table on Sustainable Development, and from Europe—for example the European environment committee—for their views on what is most environmentally friendly and economic. They put
  404
  energy efficiency first, followed by renewables and fossil fuels in order of carbon burning, and they regarded the nuclear option as the worst from both points of view.
  Mr. Gibb: That is their opinion and they are entitled to it. It is an opinion that we should hear in this debate, although it is not necessarily one that is shared by many people. It is not realistic to assume that we can make up for the 8 per cent. of electricity that will be lost as a result of the closure of the Magnox stations through energy efficiency—3 per cent. is the maximum that that would save—and demand for electricity is increasing hugely. The figures do not stack up.
  The Government's policy—to the extent that they have a coherent policy at all—appears to be, by default, abandoning their Kyoto targets after 2012. That lack of coherence has infected the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions in its equivocation over the decision to approve the commissioning of the main Sellafield MOX plant. That facility has been ready for more than two years, but still no decision about full commissioning has been made.
  Paragraph 70 of the Trade and Industry Committee report cites a report by the PA Consulting Group, noting:
  It warned that "any significant delay to the commissioning start date" could affect customer confidence and "place BNFL at a competitive disadvantage".
  The PA Consulting Group report was published in 1997. In November 2000, a decision has still not been made. The Select Committee report concluded:
  The delay in deciding on whether to permit full commissioning of the Mox plant has gone on long enough.
  So it has.
  Delay, dither and incompetence are the hallmark of policy making by Ministers on this issue—never more so than in the mishandling of the whole MOX data falsification affair by the Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe. The House is aware that the matter first arose in September last year—as the right hon. Member for Copeland pointed out—when it was discovered that data records of secondary safety checks on a batch of MOX fuel pellets for a Japanese client had been falsified. As a consequence, operations at the facility were suspended—rightly so.
  Despite initial statements to the contrary, it was later discovered that the pellets had already been shipped to Japan by the time the data falsification became known. As the House is also aware, the pellets were in fact perfectly safe. The secondary safety check was just that—an additional check on the size of the pellets, requested by the client. As the hon. Member for Ochil pointed out, the issue was one of contract compliance and not one of safety.
  The Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe (Mrs. Helen Liddell): It is important to make it clear to the House that the checks that were carried out were for quality assurance; safety has never been in question. Indeed, the nuclear installations inspectorate made that absolutely clear. It is most important that the hon. Gentleman gets his facts right; jobs are riding on this matter—as is the reputation of an important industry.
  Mr. Gibb: It is very important that the right hon. Lady listen to what I am saying. My point was precisely that: it

  405
  was not a safety issue—solely one of contract compliance. The right hon. Lady repeated what I said; I have no disagreement with her on that point.
  However, the issue became one of how not to treat our most important business relationships. In February this year, just before the nuclear installations inspectorate report into that incident and into other management matters at Sellafield, a team of DTI officials visited Japan with a copy of the draft NII report to discuss the incident with the Japanese Government and the Japanese electricity industry. After those consultations, the British embassy in Tokyo—whose officials were closely involved with the negotiations—was firmly of the opinion that the MOX fuel that had been shipped out to Japan would have to be returned to Sellafield.
  The advice from the embassy stated that
  we feel that we have no choice but to look very seriously at the option of agreeing to return the fuel. And agreeing sooner rather than later so as …to avoid serious long-term damage to our relations with Japan in the nuclear field.
  My understanding is that the advice from the embassy was strongly in favour of returning the fuel and warned Ministers of the consequence of not doing so.
  Mrs. Liddell: Will the hon. Gentleman help the House to get to grips with how factual his position is? On which date was that advice given?
  Mr. Gibb: The date of the advice was 14 February. It states:
  Grudging agreement to return of the fuel after half-hearted attempts to find alternatives could be very damaging to BNFL and more widely. The most effective—possibly the only—way of restoring confidence and securing business for BNFL in a reasonable time scale would be to agree soon to return of the fuel.

  Clear advice was given in February. Why did the Minister not accept that advice? Even without the advice, it was perfectly clear that the fuel would have to be returned. There were clear signals from the Japanese that they would not—indeed, could not—accept that the fuel remain in Japan.
  Mrs. Liddell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Gibb: I shall give way to the right hon. Lady in a minute, after I have asked a few questions. Why did she and her officials continue to refuse to allow BNFL to take back the fuel? Why did it take until July before the decision was changed and it was agreed that BNFL could take back the fuel? Will she reply to those questions?
  Mrs. Liddell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene because it gives me an excellent opportunity to set the record straight. The House will recall that the hon. Gentleman said that the alleged document to which he has referred was published on 14 February. I regret the fact that he has not done his homework, because on 10 February, Mrs. Anna Walker, the director-general of energy at the Department of Trade and Industry, issued a press release following her discussions on the return of the fuel with the Japanese authorities. The hon. Gentleman should have gathered from our debate that this is a serious issue, so he should get his facts right and do his homework. This is not rocket science; it is common sense.
  Mr. Gibb: It is rocket science, and I have got my facts straight. The advice from the embassy is absolutely clear
  406
  and it was not from Anna Walker. The British embassy in Tokyo told Anna Walker on 14 February that it was its firm advice that the MOX fuel should be returned to Sellafield from Japan at the earliest possible moment. BNFL was stopped from allowing the fuel to come back. It was only in response to pressure and in July this year that the fuel was allowed to come back. It was that grudging acceptance to take back the fuel in July that caused the damage to our relations with Japan.
  Conservative Members understand the great importance to BNFL of its relationship with its Japanese customers and attach enormous importance to the UK's relationship with Japan. Japanese utilities have been an important factor in BNFL's commercial success, particularly the operations at Sellafield, which is the biggest employer in west Cumbria. BNFL is a world-class company with 23,000 highly skilled and competent employees worldwide with a proven track record in dealing with waste management and decommissioning. There are huge markets for those services here and overseas.
  The right hon. Lady has done nothing to address my points other than to say that the DTI issued a press release on 10 February—so what? All that she has achieved so far is to misjudge totally the handling of the MOX falsification issue and thereby damage the relationship with BNFL's principal customer. Therefore, for the benefit of the House, will she tell us what will now happen to the returned MOX fuel from Japan?
  The right hon. Lady and the Secretary of State have also managed to criticise the management of BNFL in public and in such a way that it has caused further damage to BNFL's reputation overseas, particularly in the United States, a crucial market for BNFL's decommissioning skills and experience. The Secretary of State's comment in The Independent on 17 February that
  there is a fundamental flaw in the management at BNFL
  has done incalculable damage to the company's reputation overseas.
  Despite such language and the other statements by the right hon. Lady about root-and-branch reform of management, is she confident that all the managers and senior managers with direct responsibility for the data falsification issue have been moved and that the inherent problems that led to it happening in the first place have been dealt with? Indeed, my understanding is that one particular senior manager, with direct responsibility for this matter, was actually promoted, with the right hon. Lady's assent, to the board of BNFL. Is she confident that the Sellafield culture that many felt was at the root of the data falsification problem has changed? Those concerns echo the comment in paragraph 80 of the Select Committee report, which says that
  the extent of change in managerial arrangements is rather less than appears.
  The Government's track record on energy matters is lamentable. They have disastrously handled the Utilities Bill, which was incompetently drafted and badly taken through Parliament. That is an appalling policy basis that will burden our energy sector with millions of pounds of unnecessary costs, as will the disastrous climate change levy and the hefty duties on fuel. The Government have no coherent energy policy to deal with rising CO2 levels, and now we have the crass incompetence of their handling of the problems facing BNFL. They could so easily have been sorted out—indeed, they still could.

  407
  If the right hon. Lady had understood the validity of the advice from the British embassy in Tokyo about taking the fuel back; had used more considered language in responding to the NII report; and had understood the management issues at Sellafield and tackled them as a senior Minister should, BNFL would undoubtedly have ridden the MOX storm by now and established new and lucrative contracts with the Japanese. As it is, the Japan Times reported on 16 October that 10 Japanese electricity companies had recently awarded a £500,000 reprocessing contract to COGEMA, BNFL's French competitor. That is the legacy of the right hon. Lady's stewardship.
  These are serious matters and this has been a serious debate. I hope that the Minister will address the issues raised by all Members with that seriousness in mind.
  9.40 pm
  The Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe (Mrs. Helen Liddell): As this is the first time that I have participated in a debate before you in your present capacity, Mr. Speaker, may I say what a great pleasure it is to see you in the Chair? I will try very hard to avoid incurring your wrath for as long as possible.
  I have often thought that the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) inhabits a parallel universe, and tonight we have had proof of that. He made spurious allegations that he punted in The Times this morning before the debate. He admitted that the date on the letter that he claims to have received is 14 February, although the issues were dealt with on 10 February. I thought that the hon. Gentleman was an accountant; perhaps I should ask him to do my tax returns.
  Mr. Gibb: Will the right hon. Lady publish all the advice that she received from the embassy in February, to put the matter straight?
  Mrs. Liddell: Some of the advice given to me is of a commercial nature.
  Mr. Gibb: Ah.
  Mrs. Liddell: Well, the hon. Gentleman has pointed out that other companies are involved. I am interested in securing the jobs of people at BNFL, and the hon. Gentleman should have taken into account the points made by the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) about the significance of those issues for continuing employment in an important industry. The hon. Gentleman has altogether missed the point of the debate and completely failed to take into account the serious issues that we are addressing.
  I shall seek to respond to all the points that have been made, but contributions have been lengthy and time is limited, so I will write to hon. Members about points that I do not have time to tackle.
  This has been an excellent opportunity to debate BNFL and the proposed public-private partnership. I have listened with great interest to the views that have been expressed. My hon. Friend the Member for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill) set the issues in context when he introduced the debate. It is important to note that openness was a
  408
  recurrent theme of the debate for Labour and Liberal Democrat Members. The key to the future of British Nuclear Fuels in a PPP is the opportunity for openness that will be provided.
  There is a wide range of views on nuclear power and reprocessing, but there is consensus in the recognition that BNFL is a major UK company, playing a unique role in some of the most challenging areas of the United Kingdom energy scene. Following the acquisition of Westinghouse and ABB, BNFL is now a global company operating in 15 countries and employing 23,000 people worldwide. BNFL's fuel manufacturing and service business, which includes fuel manufacturing sites in the United States, and the highly regarded Springfields site to which the right hon. Member for Fylde referred, has the expertise to supply fuel solutions to the world's nuclear reactors. I should point out that the right hon. Gentleman has apologised for his absence; I understand that he has another engagement.
  The right hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil spoke about the future of Sellafield and Springfields, as did my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham). Few Members of Parliament have shown a greater commitment to a major employer in their constituency than my right hon. Friend has demonstrated for many years. His advice to me has been extremely important in enabling me to get to grips with the complexity of the issues, and I should like to put on record my gratitude to him.
  The future of the sites depends on BNFL getting contracts with its customers. The critical issue was summed up by my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil: it is not about taking on some of the more spurious attacks on BNFL, but about restoring its business integrity. That has been the main aim of the Government and the companies throughout the challenges and difficulties that have beset BNFL. As my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Ms Southworth) pointed out, the company often operates at the very forefront of science, it is a major export earner, it makes a significant contribution to the United Kingdom economy and it is the dominant employer in west Cumbria. It is extremely important that we get our policies right.
  The last year has been difficult and the outlook remains challenging—everyone acknowledges that. However, I commend the substantial efforts and real progress that have been made throughout the company at every level in recent months. Led by the company's new management team of Hugh Collum and Norman Askew, a wide range of actions has been taken to get the company back on track. When we got to grips with what had happened, we realised the significance of the MOX data falsification issue, so I commend the speed with which Hugh Collum, the new chairman, took charge and responded to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and me by making the necessary management changes. The report of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry is an important part of getting BNFL back where it belongs.
  The public-private partnership is not a Treasury-driven means of raising finance. It is designed not to raise money, but to bring into the company private sector commercial disciplines to help it to arrive at sound commercial judgments about business opportunities and investment decisions, to introduce sound business practice and to end the cosy relationships to which my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil referred. The hon. Member for

  409
  Hazel Grovey (Mr. Stunell) spoke about the lack of openness and transparency, and other hon. Members mentioned BNFL's accounts appearing impenetrable—now, they are far more transparent. It is for those reasons that we want to introduce the PPP.
  I was asked why we had decided on a PPP, not full privatisation. One of the reasons is that we want to proceed with consensus, and a consensus surrounds the idea of a PPP—the need to introduce private sector disciplines is recognised and the proposal has been warmly welcomed by the company's management, its staff and their unions.
  Mr. O'Neill: My right hon. Friend says that the exercise is not Treasury driven, but I imagine that it will involve the new partners bringing some money to the table—a sum that the Treasury will not have to underwrite through the public sector borrowing requirement. Therefore, there is an aspect of Treasury involvement, although we do not yet know how much money will be involved.
  Mrs. Liddell: My hon. Friend's second point is the more significant. Now, the important thing is to get BNFL back on track as the significant global player that it should be. In view of BNFL's problems, let me emphasise that there will be no PPP before the second half of 2002, at the earliest. It is also important that no rigid timetable is connected with the PPP, because we have to ensure that we get the fundamentals right.
  The report mentions the Government's role as an effective shareholder prior to the introduction of the PPP. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and when dealing with BNFL from day to day, are highly aware of the importance of that role. In the past, under the previous Administration of whom the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton is so proud, the policy was largely that of absentee landlordism. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil said, occasionally scientific principles were used to divert attention from some of the significant issues that there was a need to grasp because of the technical complexity.
  I believe that it is critical that the Government be an intelligent shareholder, but it is not the task of the Government to run the business. Governments do not run businesses. That is the responsibility of the new management. However, we do not have carte blanche to operate as an absentee shareholder.
  There have been references to British Energy and contracts between it and BNFL. These are commercial issues between the companies. If we insist that BNFL operates in a proper commercial manner, we cannot dash in and intervene. That is important.
  Mr. Stunell rose—
  Mr. Chaytor rose—
  Mrs. Liddell: I shall take two more interventions. I must then make progress.
  Mr. Stunell: The Minister has talked about a commercial decision. Would the move to a PPP be a commercial decision, or would the matter come back to the House?
  Mrs. Liddell: The issue of a PPP is some way away, because there are many fundamentals to get right first.
  410
  It cannot be earlier than the second part of 2002. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that it is not necessary to have a crystal ball to know that we shall be discussing BNFL much more in the House between now and then. The House must be confident that BNFL has met important safety targets as well as its financial and other targets. I, or whoever is the Minister with responsibilities for energy, must be confident of that on behalf of the Government.
  Mr. Chaytor: Does my right hon. Friend accept that when one party is the sole shareholder, it is difficult to argue that these are commercial issues with which we have no involvement? In any ordinary company, the sole shareholder would be involved in commercial decisions.
  Mrs. Liddell: Part of the difficulty that we face is in encouraging BNFL now, and encouraging the two significant business lanes that lie ahead of it. We must encourage BNFL to operate as a commercial entity. That means that those who deal with BNFL must also be prepared to deal with those matters.
  I believe that we have a much greater understanding of the company now as a consequence of the PPP process. I said before the Select Committee on Trade and Industry that I wanted to shine a light into every corner of the company. I am not confident that I have yet got into all the dust balls. However, a light is being shone into every part of the company. I have a regular schedule of meetings with the chairman and the chief executive. I have also met the new non-executive directors who are being appointed to the board, and there is on-going contact.
  Our objective is to focus on the major strategic issues and to ensure that we work together on specific problems, such as the difficulties with the data-falsified fuel shipped to Takahama. We are a much better informed and much more intelligent shareholder.
  As a shareholder, we want to see the new management team at BNFL succeed in getting the company back on course. We want BNFL to make the most of the scientific and engineering excellence within the business, but that must be allied to real commercial acumen. That is why I am so encouraged by the position that senior management takes on examining its strategy, thinking forward, asking questions and being realistic about the answers.
  I have been asked about the strategic review. I imagine that it will be the spring of next year before the company will be in a position to come forward with it. Many difficult issues have to be addressed, not least of which is getting customers back.
  I have also been asked about targets. The Government have a key role in encouraging target setting and target meeting. As we did last year, we are setting the company a range of targets in key areas of operation. Safety, health and environmental performance remain paramount. We want the company to achieve improved standards in all those areas. Norman Askew is monitoring the company's performance against four key measures: conventional safety, nuclear safety, environmental performance and dangerous occurrences. That will capture events that were not tracked under the former environmental, health and safety index. The company intends to publish an annual assessment of its performance on those issues in its environment, health and safety report. That is a big move forward and it is the sort of openness for which right hon. and hon. Members have been asking.

  411
  Those targets, which are being discussed with the regulatory authorities, will help the Government to track the improvements. They will complement, but not substitute for, normal regulatory processes. I assure the hon. Member for Hazel Grove that the introduction of a PPP will in no way change the relationship with the regulator. The regulator must continue to have a strong influence on performance in BNFL.
  I say to the work force at BNFL that their skills and productivity have a crucial part to play in the company's future. BNFL and the trades unions representing the work force have agreed to work together to develop a competency framework to measure the performance of individuals and to identify and meet particular training needs. We will monitor that and check the implementation of the programme.
  There was a realistic response from the trades unions when the MOX data falsification issue arose—a more realistic view of the situation than was displayed by the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton. Such involvement is critical. I want real improvements in relationships throughout the company. I believe that something has been created that can be built on to create a company that has the potential for excellence, but that company must be prepared to be realistic about some of the challenges that it faces.
  Specific financial performance targets are in place. Part of the issue for BNFL is the effective management of liabilities, which is central to its business. Therefore, we have set it a target based on effective delivery of several significant decommissioning and waste management projects to time and to cost.
  I could not agree more with the hon. Member for Hazel Grove about BNFL seeking the opportunity to move into different sectors. Several hon. Members have talked about
  412
  new build, and that is why ABB and Westinghouse are so important. Their purchase gives the company access to the technology and expertise. However, the Government believe that it is for the generators to decide the nature of the future generating capacity. That will be based on whether that technology can meet the expected high safety and environmental standards at an economic cost. Once again, that comes back to the need to ensure that decisions are taken coherently and effectively.
  Several hon. Members spoke about the Sellafield MOX plant. That matter will be resolved by the Deputy Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Health. I cannot say when that decision will come, but I make a straightforward, common-sense point. Giving authority for the Sellafield MOX plant also requires knowing that there are customers.
  BNFL is working hard to restore Japan's confidence in it—it is essential that that happens. I met the president of the Japanese utility, Tokyo Electric Power Company—TEPCO—last Thursday to discuss the issues. A very good co-operative relationship exists, but it is for BNFL and the utilities companies in Japan to come to contractual arrangements. I understand that BNFL and Kansai Electric are discussing the next steps, including practical arrangements, for return of the fuel. The issues involved are not easy to address and the Government will do what they can to assist.
  We have had a long debate tonight about the corporate strategy and reprocessing. As a shareholder, the Government are committed to reprocessing, but there must be a proper analysis of the prospects for the company. The debate has been useful. There are many issues still to be resolved, but we have made a start, and one of the greatest achievements is the recognition on the part of the company that openness must be all.
  It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

  Indebtedness and Poverty
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Sutcliffe.]
  10 pm
  Mr. John McFall:
  I am grateful for the opportunity to speak about poverty and indebtedness.
  Poverty
  is the biggest scar of a civilised society.
  So said the Secretary of State for Scotland in evidence to the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs in its report entitled "Poverty in Scotland". That was appropriate, because we cannot allow it to be thought that poverty and debt are problems only for people far away.
  In Scotland, one of four households live in poverty, on incomes below half the average income. In June this year, the United Nations Children's Fund published a report that placed Britain in the bottom four of a league table measuring child poverty in industrialised countries. Child poverty in Britain has tripled over the past 20 years, and on average one in five children in Britain now live in relative poverty—in an environment where national income has doubled and redoubled since 1950. In a climate in which most of the population are becoming richer, the material and social deprivation of a quarter of the population is unacceptable.
  I know that the Government are serious about their pledge to eradicate child poverty by 2020, and I commend the work of the social exclusion unit, which has devised strategies to tackle poverty and social exclusion. Clearly, the prevailing social and economic conditions are part of a long-term inheritance and cannot be reversed at once.
  However, there is no room for complacency. Poverty in the United Kingdom must remain at the top of the agenda. Urgent and far-reaching reforms are needed if Britain is to improve its appalling record on child poverty. The work of the social exclusion unit has made some important contributions so far, as has the Department of Social Security through its two annual poverty audits. It is crucial that that work continues to be developed and prioritised. Furthermore, if the Government's strategy is to be coherent and effective, it must address the various dimensions of poverty and social exclusion, and ensure that policies are properly co-ordinated and implemented across Departments.
  I have called the debate tonight to highlight one of the faces of poverty in the UK which I believe needs to be more central to the Government's strategy. Evidence suggests that there is a growing crisis of indebtedness in the UK, particularly among people on low incomes. That is borne out by a recent report by the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, which revealed that in England and Wales, 1.5 million people approached their local citizens advice bureau for help with debt problems last year. Scottish CABs have reported similarly critical levels of indebtedness, with debt problems amounting to about £60 million handled in 1999.
  My own CAB in Dumbarton has recorded in the past 18 months an increase of more than 50 per cent. in the number of debt and consumer inquiries. I pay tribute to the local manager, Joe McCormick, and his dedicated team for their many years of service to the community.
  414
  These volunteers should be assisted by a legislative and statutory framework that supports, rather than hinders, their work.
  Progress has been made through the work of the social exclusion unit in identifying some of the causes of financial exclusion in the UK. It has rightly identified that the Post Office and high street banks have an important role to play in widening access to mainstream services. It has also made some important recommendations about how the Government should encourage credit union development.
  However, the social exclusion unit needs to develop a more comprehensive interdepartmental strategy. That should address not only access to financial services, but ways of tackling the serious debt problems which result from financial exclusion, and which increase the burden of poverty on the country's most vulnerable citizens. In particular, such a strategy would need to address issues relating to door-to-door lending and the inadequate provisions of the social fund. More attention also needs to be given to assisting credit unions in reaching the poorest in society.
  Take the issue of extortionate lending—in a climate where, according to Bristol university, 29 per cent. of households have no access to mainstream credit, it is not surprising that more and more people turn to high-cost private moneylenders to pay for essential items. They are then subject to excessively high interest charges and irresponsible lending practices.
  Provident Financial, the largest home credit company, has seen its customers grow by more than 300,000 since 1995. In 1999, it charged its 1.5 million customers a typical APR of 164 per cent. and, from a turnover of £422 million, it made a pre-tax profit of £155 million.
  Earlier this year, as I said, the Scottish Affairs Committee published a report on poverty in Scotland. It found that a £500 loan from a Glasgow consumer credit company could generate interest amounting to £310—but the same loan from Cranhill Credit Union Ltd. would cost £18.60. The Committee also found that the company in question encouraged people to take out further high-cost loans in order to pay off existing debts. Further examples of moneylenders targeting the poorest, offering loans without taking proper account of ability to repay, and abusing the regulations on cold calling by offering shopping vouchers, are increasingly evident.
  Problems of extortionate lending have been on the agenda for some time. In 1991, the Office of Fair Trading carried out a report into unjust credit transactions, and it found that
  the extortionate credit provisions of the Act—
  the Consumer Credit Act 1974—
  have not effectively dealt with the problems to which they were addressed.
  It made a series of recommendations which were referred to the Department of Trade and Industry in February 1999, and research was commissioned into the extent of extortionate credit lending.
  The research was concluded in June 1999, but the findings were not published until April 2000. The DTI then announced its intention to restrict action on extortionate credit to just one of the 18 recommendations contained in the findings. It would appear that there has

  415
  been a failure to act in the interests of low-income households. In the meantime, lenders have continued to prosper.
  My CAB refers specifically to breaches in the Consumer Credit Act. It says that a significant trend is a move towards passing on costs to clients. The OFT issued guidance on debt collection agencies and, specifically, on look-alike letters and collection charges, but it fails organisations such as the CAB time and again, as they are staffed by trained volunteers and it is up to them to collect the evidence on which to base a report on the unscrupulous behaviour of creditors.
  To give one example, client A in Dumbarton CAB had a credit card managed by Clydesdale Financial Services, a subsidiary of Next plc. The bureau had been managing the client's repayments, and it negotiated with all creditors. The client was making regular repayments as agreed. Despite that, in July this year, Clydesdale levied a charge of £387 as an administration fee because the account was in arrears. There was no provision in the contract for such a charge, but despite repeated requests Clydesdale has refused to explain its actions or withdraw its charge. The matter has now been reported to the OFT. It has failed the CAB and the individual in my constituency. Several measures need to be taken.
  First, the Department of Trade and Industry should publish all 18 recommendations contained in the Bristol university research. It should also publish a response to the consultation on consumer credit licensing that took place in May. A further consultation process should be undertaken with organisations that directly represent the concerns of vulnerable consumers. That could be achieved through the debt task force or another appropriate body.
  It is time for the Government to take a serious look at the activities of licensed credit brokers, especially the practice of banks, credit card companies and other financial institutions of offering unsolicited credit facilities to vulnerable people, thereby encouraging them to incur financial commitments that they cannot sustain. They are thus caught in a cycle of deprivation. A clear timetable for implementing recommendations should also be drawn up. Urgent consideration should be given to setting statutory maximum interest rates, with reference to successful models in other European countries.
  The Commission on Social Justice, which the late John Smith set up in 1994, stated:
  Perhaps the most soul-destroying aspect of Income Support is the Social Fund.
  Many people and non-governmental organisations believe that the inadequate provisions of the social fund constitute one of the reasons for the rapid growth of the private credit industry. The current system, which offers mostly loans, replaced the single payments system in 1988. At the outset, the budget was reduced by 0.5 per cent. It seems a small amount, but the effect on families was devastating. Research that the Conservative Government initiated found that 70 per cent. of those repaying loans experienced difficulties in meeting the costs of fuel and clothes when the money ran out.
  Despite increases in benefits for children and other initiatives, the current level of social security is not always sufficient to enable families to meet all basic needs. Families at some time need access to a cash safety
  416
  net. Furthermore, no United Kingdom Government have carried out a proper assessment of the minimum income needed to maintain health and dignity, and meet essential needs, since before the introduction of the welfare system in 1948.
  Several key reforms of the social fund should be undertaken. First, a minimum income standard should be researched and established by government as a target for setting benefit rates. Secondly, the budget for grants should be increased considerably. Thirdly, new grants should be introduced to help families to meet specific needs. They should be paid at particular stages of a child's life. Fourthly, an in-depth review of the workings of the social fund, and its impact on some of the most vulnerable sections of the community, is long overdue and should be undertaken.
  The fund should be part of an interim programme of assistance to be phased out in 2020, when the Government meet their poverty eradication targets. Grants should be perceived as a means of ensuring that children have the right to an adequate standard of living, in accordance with the United Nations convention on the rights of the child.
  I commend the work of the social exclusion unit and the Treasury in supporting the growth of the credit union movement. However, groups such as Debt on our Doorstep, which has petitioned me, are worried that the new regulatory framework that the Financial Services Authority is drawing up is in danger of excluding those whom it most needs to reach. Greater consideration should be given to methods of ensuring that credit unions' community and social functions are preserved and prioritised.
  Credit unions in some areas have set up debt redemption schemes with local authorities. Those schemes provide funds to buy out debts held by companies such as Provident Financial. Their success has been proven by independent evaluation. As well as enabling credit unions to play a vital role in tackling financial exclusion, greater investment in debt redemption schemes would also help to ensure that funding for regeneration remains in the community rather than being turned into profits for big business.
  Greater emphasis should be placed on ways in which local authorities can support credit unions in their areas. As the Scottish Affairs Committee stated, the best antidote to debt, next to an adequate income, is decent advice about money, which is properly resourced and capable of development. How about establishing a money advice hotline run by local authorities, which would enable people to get ready advice?
  What action should the Government take? I suggest to my hon. Friend the Minister that, to support the growth and effectiveness of credit unions, the following is necessary. First, the Financial Services Authority should be encouraged to recognise the unique volunteer control of credit unions and to work closely with all sections of the movement to develop a distinctive framework that serves the business and community functions of credit unions. Secondly, central Government should make significant investment to fund redemption schemes through local authorities. Thirdly, local authorities should be strongly encouraged to offer a range of services to support credit unions, including help to fund debt redemption schemes.

  417
  The lethal combination of inadequate incomes, lack of affordable credit alternatives and extortionate interest rates means that low-income families are quickly trapped in a spiral of unsustainable debt. Debt will no longer be such a pressing issue when the Government's poverty eradication targets are met in 2020, the incomes of the poorest are raised to such a level that those people will be prevented from falling into desperate poverty, and community finance initiatives are universally accessible. We live in hope, but, as the Rowntree Foundation recently reported, a quarter of the population cannot afford to save even £10 a month. Therefore, in the meantime, improving access to affordable sources of credit would provide a lifeline to low-income families.
  Furthermore, measures to respond effectively to high indebtedness must include greater protection against unscrupulous lenders and a radical review of the social fund. Initiatives to tackle debt and financial exclusion need to be more effectively joined up across Departments. The social exclusion unit, or another cross-departmental body, should work with the Treasury, the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department of Social Security to draw up a comprehensive plan to address the areas that I have outlined. Failing that, a key Department should be appointed to take the lead in producing an interdepartmental strategy.
  The 10th anniversary of the United Kingdom's ratification of the UN convention on the rights of the child falls in 2001. Article 27 refers to the right to an adequate standard of living. If the UK's ratification of the convention is to have any meaning, and if Britain's appalling record on child poverty is to be improved, urgent action must be taken to set people free from the prison of debt. I commend the Government for the work that they have done, but I urge them to become more involved with the NGOs and others who are pushing the issue so that we can reach our target—before 2020, I hope.
  10.17 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Angela Eagle): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) on his success in obtaining tonight's debate and on his choice of subject. As his serious contribution to this on-going debate showed, indebtedness and poverty are extremely important issues. When my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said today that we wanted all our citizens to share in the growing prosperity of the nation, he was definitely addressing many people who are in the situation that my hon. Friend described so vividly.
  My hon. Friend discussed in detail the shameful legacy of the previous Government, who created a divided society in which many were left behind to face a lifetime of poverty with little opportunity to escape. Worse, the previous Tory Government claimed that the poor would always be with us. When Conservative Members discuss such issues across the Floor of the House, it is clear that they still believe that. They take the view that Governments cannot make a difference—and the legacy that we inherited was that one household in five including adults of working age was workless.
  As my hon. Friend pointed out, there was a huge growth in the number of children living and growing up in poverty, despite a 90 per cent. real terms increase in
  418
  social security expenditure. The bills of economic failure had to be paid, and everything was left to the market, which forced everyone, including the elderly, the weak and the disadvantaged, to fend for themselves. In turn, that weakened or removed the safety net, which was so full of holes that people fell through it.
  As my hon. Friend eloquently set out, the results of the careless indifference of that approach to society are stunted life chances, loss of opportunity, waste of talent and lives made narrower and undoubtedly shorter. As he indicated, the Labour Government reject that counsel of despair and believe that Governments can make a difference. I welcome my hon. Friend's acknowledgement of the work that the Government have done so far to tackle poverty and the lack of opportunity and fairness in our society, which we inherited.
  I agree that that is a huge and challenging agenda, and much work remains to be done. The Prime Minister has set us the tough target of eradicating child poverty in 20 years. By the end of this Parliament, we will be on course to have lifted 1.2 million children out of poverty, which is a good beginning. My hon. Friend mentioned "Opportunity for all", the Government's annual publication of their anti-poverty report, which charts our progress against a wide range of indicators, including levels of income, length of time on benefit, widening educational opportunities, access to health services, child care and other issues. As my hon. Friend said, poverty is multi-faceted and the cure for it is not simple. However, as he pointed out, the cure relies on a multi-dimensional cross-departmental approach, which we are putting in place. I am not claiming that it is perfect yet, but we are working on it. I certainly welcome my hon. Friend's contribution to the debate tonight.
  The latest report highlighted the progress made in the three short years in which we have been in power and the two years for which we have published "Opportunity for all". The number of lone parents on income support has fallen by more than 100,000 since May 1997, and the proportion of children in workless households fell to 15.8 per cent. in spring 2000, which is down from 17.9 per cent. in spring 1997. That means that 250,000 fewer children are living in workless households and 300,000 fewer children are in families who claim out-of-work benefits. That is a start, and we are getting somewhere.
  The number of children whose parents have been claiming benefit for more than two years has fallen by nearly 200,000 since 1997. Educational standards, which represent the way out of some of these difficulties, are already improving, and the proportion achieving the expected numeracy standard at age 11 is up from 62 per cent. in 1997 to 72 per cent. in 2000. In literacy, 63 per cent. achieved the standard in 1997—a figure that rose to 75 per cent. in 2000. The number of permanent exclusions from school has gone down dramatically.
  That is a start, and demonstrates that Government action can make a difference and, indeed, has done so. The national minimum wage has helped 1.5 million people, and there has been a 26 per cent. real terms increase in child benefit in three years. Even before today's very welcome announcements by the Chancellor, all families with children were better off by £850 a year on average as a result of changes in the social security system and the tax system. Working families tax credit is

  419
  a key aim, and will make a real difference to many people who now have a real prospect of work for the first time in many years.
  My hon. Friend vividly described the problems of indebtedness, and many of us recognised those problems from our constituency case loads. We have seen shady people who give out family allowance books to mothers and collect them back after they have come out of the post office and handed their money over. We know what goes on. Problems of indebtedness and financial exclusion exacerbate the problems that are faced by the poorest in our society.
  My hon. Friend discussed the role of credit unions and the social fund in providing some answers, and raised the important issue of extortionate lending. We know from our own research that low income families are as likely to use credit as high income families, but use it for necessities rather than luxuries, and get a much worse deal than those who borrow higher up the income scale. We want to tackle those problems. My hon. Friend mentioned the 44 recommendations of the 14th report of the social exclusion unit policy action team, to which we shall shortly be responding in detail.
  I have considerable sympathy with what my hon. Friend said about extortionate lenders, and I recognise many of the tactics that he described. Loan sharks are a curse. This matter has been taken up by my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Department of Trade and Industry, and I shall pass on my hon. Friend's comments to them, as they follow up the recent debt summit. They are examining how to update the Consumer Credit Act 1974 to limit the power of extortionate lenders, and deciding on their future policy.
  My hon. Friend is right to stress the importance of credit unions. As providers of low-cost credit to people on low incomes or with a poor credit history, they have the potential to make a significant contribution to the fight against financial exclusion. The movement as a whole needs to grow. Credit unions serving deprived communities must be central to that growth, and we are taking steps to support their development.
  By 2002, we want to extend the maximum loan repayment periods allowed, give credit unions greater flexibility on disposal of repossessed collateral, remove
  420
  the maximum membership limit, and ensure that members receive protection as depositors similar to that received by users of other lending institutions. When a credit union works well it is fantastic, but if it is dodgy it can create enormous problems. We must ensure that with the growth of credit unions comes an assurance that they are above board and that money put into them is safe.
  My hon. Friend mentioned the changes to the social fund. We have already introduced changes, which have been widely welcomed, to the way in which the budgeting loan system works. Independent research has shown that the change to the budgeting loan scheme has made it easier to use, quicker, more easily understandable and less intrusive for applicants.
  Other changes to the social fund in the past three years have included two increases in the amount of money allocated to the grants budget since 1997. Those were the first increases since 1994. There has been a 15 per cent. increase in expenditure on budgeting loans, which is up to nearly £400 million, with a 9 per cent. increase in the number of successful applicants, and only a 5 per cent. increase in the number of refusals. We should contrast that with the Tories' plans to decimate the fund by taking £90 million out of it to pay for their spurious pension proposals, which will hit women, children and people with disabilities, who are the main users of the social fund, far harder than anyone else in society. As my hon. Friend said, they would hit the poorest and most vulnerable harder. It is a cruel policy.
  I am not saying that the social fund is perfect. I should like to send my warm wishes to the Debt on our Doorstep campaign, whose representatives I met at the recent party conference. We had a long discussion about some of the issues that my hon. Friend has raised. He is right to say that we need a cross-departmental approach. I promise that I will consider the suggestions that he made and will pass them on to the relevant Departments. I assure him that poverty and its alleviation will remain at the top of our priorities. I welcome his interest in the issue, and the fact that we have been able to have this short but important debate.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes past Ten o'clock

Preamble
[MRS. SYLVIA HEAL in the Chair]

Domestic Violence
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned—[Mr. Jamieson.]
9.30 am
Mr. Anthony Steen: I welcome you to the Chair, which I hope that you will enjoy, Madam Deputy Speaker.
In any civilised society, absolutely no one has the right to knock the living daylights out of anyone else, yet the police receive more than 570,000 calls a year reporting violent attacks in the home. The largest category of assaults recorded by the British crime survey involves domestic violence and 80 per cent. of them are against women. Domestic violence—violence within the family—is a huge and hidden problem. A snapshot of one day of violence shows that some victims are raped or stabbed. Women are kicked while pregnant. Some are left with cuts and bleeding. One victim had her throat slashed with a razor blade. Four out of five calls are from women who have been attacked by men. Only one in 10 is from a man who has been attacked by a woman. A person is assaulted in the home every 20 seconds, so a woman somewhere has been assaulted since I started my speech.
At greatest risk are those aged under 25 and in financial difficulty. The risks are highest for women who are separated from their spouses. The public is now on the alert for child abuse, both physical and mental. The media and the Children Act 1989 have done a great deal to bring that evil into the public eye. Rape is a vile crime, which thankfully no longer attracts comments from the police and judiciary suggesting that the victim asked for it. Parliamentary colleagues regularly receive thousands of letters from constituents reporting cruelty to animals, but what about cruelty to human beings in this country? Domestic violence occurs behind closed doors, so it has been convenient to overlook it. However, by tolerating domestic violence, we condone it as an acceptable form of behaviour. By failing to outlaw and punish the perpetrators, we collaborate in undermining the healthy fabric of our society.
The law acknowledges physical violence, but emotional and mental abuse are as widespread and its natural precursor. When the victim is verbally undermined as well as physically threatened, she suffers a loss of confidence and dignity. Women live moment by moment, fearful of what might happen when their partner returns home and experiences an unexpected mood change. Emotional terrorism goes hand in hand with physical abuse but often is not accompanied by physical abuse. Only such emotional and mental abuse enables the abuser to feel sufficiently confident to pursue the power that he seeks—complete control, body and soul, of another human being.
Evidence shows that women tend not to complain immediately. They want things to work out and believe that they can make things better. They think that they
46WH
can make a difference, as though they were nurturing a naughty child; they cajole, placate, spoil and offer their unconditional support. They give more love, not less. Unfortunately, matters always get worse. Statistics show that it is not until they have been physically abused an average of 30 or 35 times that women take action.
The full extent of domestic violence will probably never be known, but the facts speak for themselves. In 1996, nearly half of the 224 woman homicide victims were killed by their partners. Of 426 male homicide victims, only 8 per cent. were killed by their partners. Domestic violence is the most common single cause of violence against women, and it accounts for a quarter of all recorded crime.
The harrowing account of a constituent of mine illustrates the horror and degradation that a young woman had to endure at the hands of a brutal and cruel man who, on the face of it, was a respected manager of an out-of-town shopping centre where she had worked for six years. Julie's story is so typical that I shall tell it in her own words. She said:
On 9 August 1996 we were married. It was the best day of my life. On 10 August, he attacked me and tried to strangle me in our bedroom. He attacked me again for wearing a bikini in the pool. I was on honeymoon in a strange country being beaten by the very man who only a week before had promised to make all my dreams come true.
The day before I was due to return to work, he set about me on the stairs, just because my mother said he looked like a character from a soap opera she watched. He slapped me about the face and pushed me down the stairs. The next morning I had a huge black eye and bruising about the head. The mirror said it all. I couldn't go to work like that.
By November I was five months pregnant and that is when the trouble began in earnest. He would get me up in the middle of the night and interrogate me about my past boyfriends, saying he was not the father of our child and set about me. He was never in a rage when he did this, he was always calm and collected. I dared not provoke him by defending myself in any way. It never worked. I was afraid what more he might do to me. I guess it wore me down because I couldn't find the guts to ask for help, particularly from my family or friends. I was too ashamed, it had been going on so long. A couple of months after our baby was born, he punched me in the breasts and pinned me to the floor, his foot to my throat, he was wearing his Cat boots.
The final straw came on 9 May 1997. He first attacked me at around 10.00 in the morning, then on and off for the better part of the day, about 6–7 hours in all. He repeatedly got me by the throat to stop me breathing while he reassured me that I could be unconscious for two minutes and still be okay. Then he would take to kicking me in the legs and buttocks. He only stopped to wash his face of sweat, before starting off again. He told me he was ready to do 25 years in prison for me. He then got hold of a fondue fork and threatened to stab me in the eye. I was absolutely terrified and really believed that this time I would not get out alive. But he suddenly left off, put on his coat and went out of the house—"to get some fish and chips", he said.
That is just one of the harrowing and horrifying accounts that I have heard at first hand from the women that I have talked to at the South Devon Women's Aid outreach project. It was an unbelievable experience. The project works like the secret service. It has offered confidential advice and practical help to some of the 897 women who have called on it during the past year. Those women were in dire distress and came from four small districts. I am sure that many colleagues have heard similar stories. Having heard Julie's story, it is not surprising to hear that three women a week are killed by former or current partners.

47WH
The scale of the problem and its horrifying nature is mind-numbing. We need to lift the lid on this horror. Perpetrators of domestic violence must pay; just as child abusers and paedophiles are now recognised as pariahs of society, so must they be exposed for the monsters that they truly are. What can we do to rid ourselves of these bullies and tormentors? How are the police, the social services and the courts coping?
At one time, the police distinguished between violence on the streets and violence at home. Thankfully, they have made great strides in recent years, with the help that they provide to victims of domestic violence—many of whom are in a state of utter despair and fear and have nowhere else to turn. Indeed, Julie told me that she was eternally grateful to the policeman who listened to her and believed her. He was sympathetic and understanding, and encouraged her to sign her statement. Julie told me that it was the police's positive response that helped to turn her life around. If she had received a negative response, she might well have gone back to her abusive husband and ended up as another homicide statistic.
Although police attitudes have changed, targeted training is needed to deal with domestic violence on the doorstep and careful attention needs to be given to how the police might become more proactive in seeking it out. We are fortunate in Devon to have two police officers whose sole responsibility is for cases of domestic violence. They cover Torbay, South Hams and Teignbridge, which are part of my constituency, and West Devon, which is not. The total population there is well over 300,000. It is self-evident that more police officers should be aware of what domestic violence entails. The limited number of trained police officers in far-flung rural areas such as mine—where two officers often have to travel 60 or more miles between each call—results in limited cover.
A decade ago, I spent an evening with the police in Kingsbridge, a town in my constituency. In retrospect, I realise that almost all the emergency calls that night involved apparent acts of domestic violence. At the time, I was not aware of it. One call was from a woman whose partner was threatening her with a double-barrelled shotgun. Out we rushed in a panda car. When we arrived, the policeman smiled at the couple and told the farmer with the gun to put that silly thing away. He smiled at the lady and told her that everything would be all right. In retrospect, it was probably a warning sign that should have been taken much more seriously.
What about the judiciary? There are some very real problems there. Although there has been a shift in awareness, the courts employ practices that often militate against bringing abusers to justice. What woman who has been knocked senseless is prepared to confront her partner across a courtroom, without fear for her personal safety when she gets outside? Videotaped evidence should be the norm in these cases, and in instances of domestic violence the burden of proof should be specifically placed on the man to prove that he is a responsible person and should have access to his children.
Contact orders are awarded almost automatically to married men and to most unmarried fathers, even if they are known to be violent within the family. Although
48WH
there are strong links between domestic violence and child abuse, that danger is often not recognised by family courts. If arrangements cannot be agreed between a separating couple for their children, either parent can apply under section 8 of the Children Act 1989 for a residence order to decide whom the child will live with, or for a contact order to determine how the child will maintain contact with the non-resident parent.
Although under the guiding principles set out in section 1 of the 1989 Act, the welfare of the child is paramount, there is no reference to domestic violence. The same applies to the guidance that accompanies the Act. It does not require the court to consider the safety of the other parent or of other children in the family. The Family Law Act 1996 went some way to recognise those issues, but decisions in the Court of Appeal have established a strong case law presumption that contact will almost always be granted, as in the long term it is considered to be in the best interests of the child.
Children of abusive families live in fear and confusion. Many abused children fail to thrive, remain weak and undernourished, start hitting out at school, fail to make academic progress, play truant and steal, and become part of the crime statistics. In one third of child protection cases domestic violence was identified as part of the problem, although it is widely believed that the real figure is much higher.
Women need protection. South Devon Women's Aid has a number of refuges in which women who have been brutalised may seek a safe sanctuary. There are three in Devon and four in Cornwall, offering between them about 35 to 40 places—and that is all—enabling desperate women to get away. There is always a massive waiting list. The refuges do essential, invaluable and vital work in providing a safe house where victims' self-esteem can be restored. The 897 women who called South Devon Women's Aid last year were primarily counselled by a handful of paid workers and a small battalion of women volunteers. Those women do an amazing undercover job with inadequate resources. They provide practical help, advice and information for women who are desperate to get out of abusive relationships. Let us not forget that the numbers involved are massive—at least half a million women a year in the United Kingdom suffer from abusive and violent relationships.
Is there any way to prevent this problem? Is there a way to make progress? I believe that that depends on analysis of the cause of the problem. Some psychiatrists and psychologists believe that domestic violence is proof positive of widespread mental disorder eating away at the fabric of our society and effecting the breakdown of the nuclear family. They point out the increase in stress and personal pressure in everyday life, which means that many people just cannot cope any longer with the demands made of them and the speed of change. However, that analysis fails to account for the fact that the problem is not a new phenomenon. Unemployment, poverty and poor housing do not help, but we should not forget that domestic violence is encountered in all strata of society. Regardless of its root causes, it cannot be tolerated. In a civilised society, no one has the right to knock the living daylights out of anyone else.
Domestic violence is the most insidious of crimes. It is not a one-off, for the sins of the fathers are visited on the children. Young boys seek to emulate their abusive and

49WH
violent fathers, whom they see as role models. In turn, they repeat the abusive behaviour by attacking their mothers. It is no wonder that women who contact help agencies are not only those who complain about their partners, but mothers asking to be rescued from their violent sons. It sounds as though our country has become a war zone. It has, I believe, become a domestic war zone.
I applaud the recent focus on bullying in schools. Perhaps it will open our eyes to scraps in the playground involving boys and girls. The teaching profession is reassessing training methods, to help teachers in primary schools deal with bullying. The work of Kidscape shows how crucial it is for violence at an early age to be rooted out. Coram Family, the London child care charity based in King's Cross, is breaking new ground in tackling poor family relationships and family breakdown. The work focuses on improving relationships and expectations between men and women, thus preventing violent and abusive relationships. One of the projects recently set up is Boyz to Men, which works with young black men in the care system, setting out to promote new understanding of their future role as fathers and partners. The young men in question frequently have had bad models in their own fathers and need to find new and less violent ways of relating to their partners in future.
Quite a bit is being done in the voluntary sector to address the problem that I have described, but can the state do anything? An effective and supportive legal system is essential in tackling domestic violence. It needs to provide protection for women and children and to hold abusers to account. If women are afraid to use the legal system, we must attend to it until it is shown to provide protection and safeguards for people who have suffered such terrible violence. The Crown Prosecution Service should play a far more helpful and positive role. It should automatically take the initiative and bring prosecutions. It should not be expected that victims will prosecute. Although there is a general acceptance that the police and judicial system now treat victims of domestic violence with greater sympathy and listen and respond to their experiences, such improvements are piecemeal and not every court is quite so sympathetic.
We can get to work straight away. Comprehensive training in domestic violence issues should be included in the training of all legal practitioners. We need an improved police response, strengthened pro-arrest policies, improved collection of evidence and an end to the routine release of the offender on bail. There should be better co-ordination between the criminal and civil law in relation to domestic violence. The criminal justice system should issue stronger sanctions against abusers. "Seek and find" orders should not be pursued in cases of domestic violence and the court procedures must be altered to ensure that the addresses of abused women and children remain absolutely confidential.
The Child Support Agency grants departure orders allowing men to reduce their contributions to their wives on the pretext of having to make costly journeys to see their children. The benefit should be available only with proper receipts, because the mothers know when the visits do not happen, but fear to let the officials know because of the likely consequences. An effective legal response should be part of a wider, community response
50WH
including refuge and support networks for women and children throughout the country. Institutional barriers to progress must go.
Women have had the vote for nearly 80 years and are viewed as equals in the eyes of the law. Condoning domestic violence by turning a blind eye and shrugging one's shoulders has gone on long enough. If more than half a million black people a year were physically and mentally assaulted, there would be a national outcry, but because women report the abuse we acquiesce. Also, because it is seen as happening at home. A change in public attitude is urgently needed. Our institutions are slowly recognising the enormity and nature of the problem and seeking better ways of dealing with it. However, the response still seems halfhearted when one realises that the homes of many victims have become war zones with an enemy as cunning as any wartime interrogator effective in the arts of brainwashing and torture.
One in four women are assaulted at some point in their lives. There are 650 Members of Parliament in the House of Commons; how many have experience of domestic violence? There are 2,000 support staff in the Houses of Parliament; how many of them have been involved in an abusive relationship?
We must now see what can be done to help women to escape from abusive relationships and to prevent their children becoming part of the cycle of violence. Child abusers and rapists must face the full consequences of their crimes, and no longer should perpetrators of domestic violence be able to escape. I hope that the debate will bring us closer to that aim.
9.52 am
Ms Sally Keeble: I congratulate the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) on securing this important debate and I appreciate the opportunity to take part in it.
I shall speak about one aspect of domestic violence: contact between violent parents and their children. My plea is that the Government enshrine in legislation the guidelines laid down by the Children Act subcommittee of the Lord Chancellor's Advisory Board on Family Law Matters, on parental contact in cases of domestic violence. That means changing the presumption set out in a ruling by the Master of the Rolls in 1995 that contact is "almost always" in the interests of the child. Instead, there should be a presumption, capable of being rebutted, that if there is a history of violence to the child or the other parent, contact and residence will not be granted until it can be shown to be safe for all parties. The safety and welfare of the child should be paramount, and that should be achieved by amending the Children Act 1989. It would also mean challenging wider social assumptions about parental rights, including parents' rights of access to their children, but it would do much to protect children and their resident parent—usually, but not always, the mother—from further attack.
To emphasise the human cost involved I, like the hon. Gentleman, shall describe the experience of a constituent, whose ex-husband attacked her eldest child with a knife and tried to strangle her when she was five and a half months pregnant with their child. When she came round, she discovered that her husband had gone,

51WH
having cut the telephone cord so that she could not summon help. She recovered, and had her child, but the police could not find her ex-husband so eventually the charges were dropped. Two years later, a letter arrived on her doormat from her ex-husband's solicitor, asking for contact. She spent two years fighting that request through nine court hearings. She finally came to me in desperation when she faced being imprisoned for contempt of court for refusing to agree to the court's contact order. The court had previously ordered indirect contact.
In nine months, the father of the little girl sent two cards, one at Christmas and one a few months later. He took little opportunity to make even indirect contact. None the less, the court ordered direct contact. My constituent faced being imprisoned for contempt of court for refusing to agree, and was told to make child care arrangements because she would be sent to prison. The court was a family court, so there was no publicity. I was horrified to realise that a woman could be repeatedly sent to prison and threatened with losing the custody of her child in a case that would not be tried at any stage in a public court.
Only at the final hearing did my constituent's lawyers draw the court's attention to the Children Act subcommittee guidelines. Much to everyone's surprise, it was found that although she was in contempt, she was reasonably in contempt and so was not sent to prison. Her story had a happy ending, but not all children are so fortunate. In August, Daniel and Jordan Philpot were gassed to death in their father's car during a contact visit. A contact order had been granted to the father, despite the fact that he was due to appear in a Crown court on charges of threatening to kill his ex-partner and causing her actual bodily harm.
Women's Aid, which has done excellent work on the subject, has provided other examples of such cases. One was of a woman who fled to a refuge with her youngest child. She was collecting her son from a contact visit to the father in 1996 when she was stabbed to death. Her son was found strangled in her husband's car, and later her three other children were found dead in their beds with their throats cut. Her husband is serving a life sentence for murder. Another case was of a woman worried about her violent husband's mental stability. She was persuaded to agree to contact without a court hearing, and her two children were murdered during a contact visit in 1993.
As the hon. Member for Totnes mentioned, it is a problem that neither the 1989 Act nor its supporting guidance explicitly mentions domestic violence in relation to contact. That makes it difficult for judges to deny contact to a violent parent. The county courts, as the hon. Gentleman said, heard 36,144 applications for parental contact in 1997–98. In only 656 cases was contact refused. The welfare of the child is considered only in decisions of residence, not contact. The number of contact orders refused is surprising, given the substantial role that domestic violence plays in marital and relationship breakdown.
There are some signs of change. In four landmark cases of applications for contact in the Court of Appeal in June, the judgment stated that
52WH
there should be no automatic assumption that contact to a violent parent was in the child's best interests. If anything the assumption should be in the opposite direction, with the violent parent proving why he or she could offer something of benefit to the child.
Also, there are the important guidelines of the Children Act subcommittee, which follow consultation with the courts and everyone involved in family and child welfare. The publication is excellent, and includes criteria for cases in which a parent is trying to get contact and there have been findings of domestic violence. It lists a series of procedures for establishing cases of domestic violence, stating:
the court should be notconsider…the effect of the domestic violence which has been established on the child and on the parent with whom the child is living…whether or not the motivation of the parent seeking contact is a desire to promote the best interests of the child or as a means of continuing a process of violence against or intimidation or harassment of the other parent.
My constituent had to go through nine hearings with a violent ex-husband who had made no effort to establish a relationship with his child through indirect contact. The hearings were in a family court with no publicity, so he could prolong the procedures without there being protection for the woman. The guidelines say that the court should also consider the
likely behaviour of the parent seeking contact during contact and its effect on the child or the children concerned.
One must bear in mind that there are other children in the family unit whose needs must be considered. The report says that the court should also consider the
capacity of the parent seeking contact to appreciate the effect of past and future violence on the other parent and the children concerned…The attitude of the parent seeking contact to past violent conduct by that parent; and in particular whether that parent has the capacity to change and/or to behave appropriately.
Those points are excellent, as is the rest of the subcommittee's report. However, I disagree with the conclusion that legislation is not needed.
Despite the new guidelines and the case law, it is not clear at all that the courts know about the changes; it did not appear that my constituent's lawyer knew about them, at least until the final hearing. It is essential that there is parity of treatment for children in all courts throughout the country, and we should not have to wait for all courts to reach the standards of the best. We should not leave more women to face continued abuse by a violent spouse or ex-spouse through the courts after they have endured violence at home from that spouse. We must not leave children at risk of further abuse or harm by a violent parent.
The principle at stake is important. It concerns the priority that should be given to the safety of the child, and society's attitudes to parental rights in relation to children. Those issues are a proper subject for discussion in Parliament and for wider debate, and I am sure that that debate would be heated. We all agree that it is wrong to hit people, especially vulnerable people such as children. However, the notion that the parent—in most cases, the father—should not have an automatic right of contact or access to his child would be controversial. It would need to be discussed, so that the principle could be established on a wide basis and properly understood.
My view is that when a parent, spouse or partner has shown a pattern of violence, especially when that violence—as it often is—is exacerbated by drug or alcohol abuse, there must be substantial evidence of

53WH
change before we can assume that that parent will not cause further harm or injury to the child or to the parent who has care of the child.
We tend to assume that domestic violence is directed at women alone, but that is often not the case. I do not have the results to hand, but some children's charities have done careful research and have found that, when the woman is attacked, the children may be witnesses to the violence or attacked themselves. Therefore, it is untrue that the issue affects only women; it affects children directly, and we should recognise the impact that it has on them and take steps to prevent it.
I welcome the approach taken by the Lord Chancellor's Department; in fact, I thought that a Minister from that Department might reply to the debate. However, I am sure that the Minister of State, Home Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) will speak with colleagues in the Lord Chancellor's Department. The approach that it has taken suggests that the Government are considering issuing a practice direction to the judiciary. However, for the reasons that I have given, I do not consider that a practice direction would be adequate to deal with the problem properly, in such a way as to allow society to understand how the issues should be resolved. I believe that the guidelines recommended by the Children Act subcommittee must be entrenched in law, and I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to respond to that point.
10.4 am
Jackie Ballard: I congratulate the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) on securing the debate and making a thoughtful and thought-provoking speech. Let me say, without being patronising, that it is excellent that a male Member has brought the issue to our attention this time. The issue has too often been perceived as one that concerns women alone, but it should concern us all.
I wish that we could come up with a term other than "domestic violence": "domestic" sounds so cosy and homely and, as the hon. Gentleman said, violence is violence wherever it occurs. If anything, violence that takes place in the home, where one normally wants and expects to feel safe and secure, must be even more frightening. As the hon. Gentleman said, at one time the stereotypical police response to a violent argument between husband and wife or cohabitees was that it was "just a domestic" and that it was better for outsiders not to get involved. I remember hearing that response. One used to hear many anecdotes about people seeing a warring couple in the street and not wanting to interfere because they were likely to be thumped instead. The police have moved on a great deal since then. My local Avon and Somerset police force has been particularly pioneering by having a domestic violence unit in each district, dedicated domestic violence officers and a pro-arrest policy. Sadly, however, it is still the case that, too often, the attitude of neighbours and witnesses is that it is better not to interfere. Much education needs to be done among ordinary members of the public.
Mr. Steen: One problem is that giving evidence in cases is not only time-consuming but, in violent cases, often dangerous. I had the misfortune of being the
54WH
victim of a road-rage case. It was adjourned at least three times and by the end I had given up about four days of my time to it. I hope that the hon. Lady agrees that we should streamline such cases, so that they can be heard speedily and witnesses need not wait interminably—for days if not weeks.
Jackie Ballard: I certainly agree. My daughter witnessed a violent incident—not domestic violence—that ended up as a case of murder; she had to wait a year before she knew whether she was required to go to court. I had to persuade her that it was the socially right thing to do. The whole court process can deter people from coming forward as witnesses.
People concerned about domestic violence are not limited to those who have experienced it at first hand or even to such people as refuge workers or the police who are in the front line of dealing with perpetrators and victims. As the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) said, the concern extends to teachers with pupils who are or have been direct or indirect victims, to general practitioners who need to be able to spot the signs of emotional crisis as well as the physical wounds, and to health visitors who need training to ask the right questions. Housing officers, social workers, probation staff, community nurses and the Crown Prosecution Service also have a role to play. A considerable number of people are therefore touched by the issue. From the victim's point of view, many people are involved. The police, refuge staff, social workers and the CPS can all play a part in what is for most victims one of the most difficult, intimate and frightening experiences of their life. It is therefore vital that victims who contact any of the agencies are guaranteed basic rights.
The hon. Member for Totnes said that one in 10 calls to the police are from men who have been assaulted by women. I suspect that there is a great deal of underreporting of the violence perpetrated on men. As there was once a huge amount of under-reporting among women—there is probably still some—because of the shame of admitting that they were being abused in their own home, it is still very difficult for a man to come forward and say that he is being physically abused by his female partner. I suspect that the number of male victims is much higher than the recorded figures although 1 am sure that the majority of victims are still, because of the physical differences between the genders, women. We tend to focus on women victims, but it is important that we do not forget male victims.
All victims need to be guaranteed confidentiality. They need to be guaranteed that they will be dealt with sensitively to ensure that the process of reporting domestic violence does not contribute to the sense of powerlessness that many victims already feel. They need to be reassured that if they come forward for help they will not be judged. In the past, victims too often felt that they had done something wrong. People who have spoken to victims of domestic violence know that they often start by saying things such as, "It was my fault because I did not have his dinner ready on time", or "It was my fault as I made him angry".
We know that domestic violence is rarely a one-off event. Many of the people who speak out have been on the receiving end for a considerable time. As the hon. Member for Totnes told us, the police say that women who report domestic violence have, on average, been

55WH
assaulted about 35 times. Such women do not need to be told that they should have reported the assaults earlier. They need to be encouraged to be strong now that they have decided to make the break—a decision that is often made in spite of huge social and economic pressures to return to an abusive partner in the belief that it will not happen again.
We need to be able to guarantee that the professionals dealing with the health, social and emotional needs of women and their children have been properly trained to do so. Ideally, specialist services will be available, but we must also ensure that every front-line worker who is dealing with the victims of domestic violence has had basic training. Above all, we must be able to guarantee that the professionals involved have a co-ordinated response. The last thing that a person who has plucked up the courage to come forward needs is to be passed from agency to agency, with the feeling that those agencies are not even talking to one another. There must be a response that does not stigmatise the victim or her family, but encourages her to take positive control of the situation.
A new United Kingdom-wide membership organisation was formed earlier this year. It is called Respect and was formed to promote best practice among statutory and independent-sector projects and workers who work with perpetrators and victims of domestic violence. It is to be formally launched in March 2001 and will be a great help in ensuring a standardised method of response. We know from children that even when people are not being abused directly, they can be living with domestic violence in a constant state of fear, anxiety, confusion and often helplessness—a fact that has been described by mothers also. At the very least, that should influence the nature of the interventions made to protect women and children. A challenge remains for all of us to try to improve a system that affects so many women and children each year.
We know that properly co-ordinated inter-agency work can achieve a great deal. It can enable effective intervention, as well as challenge and change inappropriate attitudes to domestic violence. No single agency, whether the police, social services or any other, knows all that there is to know about the subject or can tackle it alone, but when a range of agencies work closely together, domestic violence can be reduced and prevented. Hon. Members may know about the intervention project in Duluth, Minnesota, whose interagency strategy has reduced significantly the number of men who repeat acts of domestic violence. Indeed, it has also reduced domestic violence murders.
When I first visited Women's Aid projects, I found that people who worked with the organisation would not work with male offenders and focused only on the female victim. That is, after all, what the organisation was established to achieve. It regarded it as part of its task to help the woman to get away from the male offender. Many refuge workers now accept, however, that some men can be helped to recognise and end their violent behaviour if they receive appropriate counselling and support.
56WH
An independent voluntary-sector project called the domestic violence intervention project was set up in London in 1991. It provides many services to women and children but also does violence prevention group work with male perpetrators. The DVIP believes that working with perpetrators alongside their partner or ex-partner dramatically improves the safety of women and children. The previous speakers mentioned the difficulty of child contact orders. The DVIP is currently involved in an inter-agency pilot project on child contact and domestic violence, in partnership with the Middlesex family court welfare service and the Coram Family centre, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Totnes.
I should like to list the main aims of the pilot scheme, as such schemes will, alongside legal changes, have a significant contribution to make. The first aim is to include the voices of women and children in the risk assessment process, so that their safety and wishes are taken into account. The second aim is to build into the system of risk assessment the notion that perpetrators can change and should be held accountable for their abuse, and to ensure that perpetrators are actively working to change their behaviour and attitudes before contact is given. It is important to accept that many perpetrators can change, because even if one woman manages to escape from a perpetrator of domestic violence, that perpetrator is very likely to enter another violent relationship. Therefore, if it is possible to change him, that opportunity should be taken.
The third aim is to encourage consistency in judicial rulings regarding contact orders and to help the judiciary in its dilemma of balancing a child's right to see both parents against the possible risk that contact with a violent parent may present to the child and the resident parent. That means promoting safe and appropriate contact by decreasing the number of inappropriate contact orders granted, while increasing the number of perpetrators with whom people can safely work towards establishing contact.
The project will assess both partners. A risk assessment will be made of the perpetrator, and recommendations will be made to the court, which may order the perpetrator to attend a programme before it takes a decision about whether a contact order is appropriate. It has the makings of an excellent pilot project. I know that the Minister has been listening carefully, and I hope that she will note that the scheme is still actively looking for funding to evaluate the project. As we all know, it is not enough merely to conduct a pilot project. It must be evaluated to provide evidence of whether it would be worth rolling out on a wider basis.
By taking an approach that is person-centred rather than process-centred, which does not blame the victim for experiencing violence and clearly places responsibility on the abuser, which imposes sanctions for such behaviour and which ensures that sanctions are imposed as soon as possible after the incident is reported, it is possible to offer effective services that enable victims to empower themselves in circumstances that seem hopeless.
I am convinced that the inter-agency approach is best, but inter-agency working raises difficult questions that must be dealt with. How do different agencies share information while retaining confidentiality? How do

57WH
they integrate the approaches and aims of each agency without compromising anyone's position? How can power be shared among what is often a collection of unequal organisations, some of which are statutory and some of which are voluntary? Difficulties are involved, but they should not become insurmountable. However, in the long term, adequate funding is vital. I would never argue that funding alone is enough in any circumstances, but funding is obviously important to underpin the work of different agencies.
As the hon. Member for Totnes said, changing society's understanding of violence and its causes and solutions is an on-going and long-term process. In the past 10 years, many changes have taken place in how we view such matters. Services and protection are more accessible than previously. People now accept that the victim should not have to flee to safety, and that the perpetrator should be removed instead. However, effective counselling is still not widely available for everyone involved.
The hon. Member for Totnes is right about the need to reduce general levels of violence in society, to tackle violence when it starts—in the playground—and to tackle some deeply held views. A recent opinion poll asked young men in what circumstances they felt that it was appropriate to thump their partner. I have forgotten the percentages, but a rather high and worrying percentage said that if dinner was late, it was appropriate to do so. Many views need to be challenged. It is a complex issue, and I am pleased that we have had the opportunity to have a sensible and thought-provoking debate about it today.
10.18 am
Mr. John Bercow: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) on having secured the debate and on the graphic illustration of the curse of domestic violence that he offered to hon. Members. According to the figures, the number of reported incidents has declined somewhat in recent years, for which we are grateful, but it still bedevils our society, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing attention to it in such an eloquent fashion this morning. I congratulate the hon. Members for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) and for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble), who illustrated with constituency examples a problem that continues to rage.
Domestic violence can be defined as activity that involves any form of physical, sexual or emotional abuse of people in a close relationship. It is important to understand, however, that it can involve more than physical violence. It can include threats, privation, humiliation and behaviour that is designed to belittle the victim. Controlling and, in a sense, degrading conduct towards mainly women, but not infrequently now towards men, is deeply undesirable and needs to be countered.
Several hon. Members have already drawn attention to the scale of the phenomenon. One in four women suffer domestic violence at some stage during their life. When undertaking research for the debate, I was horrified to discover that two women are killed each week as a result of such violence. In 1999, the year that reflected a reduction in the incidence from two years previously, there were 761,000 cases of domestic
58WH
violence. My hon. Friend the Member for Totnes suggested that about 80 per cent. of such cases involved female victims. It is right to point out however, that just under 15 per cent. of men will suffer such abuse during their lives.
Those who practise domestic violence are more likely than not to inflict that violence on their children. Furthermore, children know rather more about it than was hitherto thought to be the case. Evidence demonstrates that about one third of children are aware of the infliction of domestic violence and that figure rises to one half in instances, regrettably all too common, of repeat offences. We must bear it in mind that in the majority of cases that knowledge is scarcely surprising given that, at the time of the commission of the offences, 90 per cent. of the children are in either the same or an adjacent room. We do not know the scale of the damage that is done to them, not only physically, but in the longterm with irrevocable emotional and psychological scars.
It is therefore right that the significance of the problem for the country has to a considerable extent been reflected in the interest that right hon. and hon. Members have taken in the subject since the general election. In the House of Commons, there have been no fewer than 33 oral questions, 169 written questions, two business questions and 10 early-day motions. There have been three Adjournment debates, initiated respectively by the hon. Members for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) in March 1998 and for Luton, South (Ms Moran) in June 1998 and again in June this year. Twenty-one questions on the subject have been asked in another place.
If we are effectively to tackle domestic violence, we must be aware that, sadly but almost inevitably, several prerequisites fall upon the victim. The first responsibility for the victim—if "responsibility" is the appropriate word to use—is for her to recognise that the violence is occurring. Secondly, the victim must come to terms with the fact that, without exception, she is not to blame. There can never be an excuse, a mitigating factor or an element of personal responsibility for the fact that someone who supposedly loves her chooses to beat her up. Thirdly, the person concerned needs to be given every possible encouragement, advice and succour to seek official help.
Many organisations provide such help and it is right to draw attention to the good work of the Women's Aid national domestic violence helpline and its local refuge services, of which there are 300 in England and Wales. Many refuge services operate advice centres, drop-in centres or outreach services to isolated areas that are still bedevilled by the problem, but which often are not so visible to the naked eye. They also operate helplines. Victims can also seek help from the refuge 24-hour national crisis line, a men's advice line, a victim support service, Shelterline, the police, the national health service, the Samaritans, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children child protection helpline, Careline and Relate.
As I have said, we need to do everything that we can to encourage the victims of domestic violence to bring it to public attention. Of course, that also requires us, consciously and repeatedly, to confront the prevailing myths on the subject. Those myths are all too frequently heard. One is, "Well, it's just the odd domestic tiff,

59WH
which all couples experience." Another is, "She's not really suffering domestic violence, it's just a ploy to get herself rehoused." A third—an outrageous statement by someone who is responsible for committing domestic violence—is, "It can't be that bad, because if it were she would leave." That wholly ignores the fact that that person is often a dependant and does not feel confident enough to leave. Again, it is sometimes said, wholly wrongly and stereotypically, that domestic violence only happens in working class families. Alternatively, it is observed that those responsible must come from violent backgrounds. They might do so; equally, they might not. I was struck by what my hon. Friend said about the ostensibly respectable person—outwardly an upright and decent citizen—running a store in his local community. In practice, however, as my hon. Friend learned to his shattering cost, the truth was nothing of the kind.
The current legal position is substantially better than it was. On a wholly unpartisan note, I should like to observe that good work took place under the previous Government. I know that when the Minister was a Back Bencher and a member of the Home Affairs Committee, she constantly urged Ministers in the previous Administration to do more, and was right to do so. This Government have also done a good deal.
The Family Law Act 1996 is one of the principal protections for those who suffer from the curse of domestic violence. That Act has two features, of which increasing advantage is being taken by victims. The first is the opportunity to secure non-molestation orders. The evidence, I think, is that that is starting to happen on a significant scale. There is common ground that under-reporting still exists, and we must do everything that we can to tackle it. In 1998, about 18,000 non-molestation orders were granted. The fact that a power of arrest is attached to the granting of those orders gives them added bite. That power has been used on 22,000 occasions, which must have a deterrent effect. It must send out a clear message about the unacceptability of domestic violence.
The second feature of the Act is the opportunity to secure an occupation order. That is crucial, although sometimes more difficult to obtain, as it regulates who can live in the home in which the domestic violence takes place.
Ms Keeble: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a housing problem attached to domestic violence? A woman can be forced to leave the home with her children, in the middle of the night, during a crisis, or later when things have calmed down. That is extraordinarily difficult for any woman. Help can be provided by local authority assessments of women who have left home suddenly because of domestic violence. Sympathetic consideration should be given to women who need private housing, rather than saying, "You've got a home to go back to." Women have real difficulty if they have to leave their homes, as they often must do, at least in the early stages.
Mr. Bercow: The hon. Lady is right to make that observation. Under part VII of the Housing Act 1996, people who are so afflicted have a right to temporary
60WH
accommodation. There should be no cavilling about that; it should be granted automatically, without debate. For occupation orders, it is important to understand that a balance of harm test is applied. If, for example, a court were to decide not to grant an order, it would have taken into account fully the likely prospect of further violence being inflicted on the victim or her family. If it were persuaded that there was a serious prospect of such violence, it must be assumed that the balance of harm test would work in favour of the victim. There is still progress to be made.
Mr. Steen: I like what my hon. Friend is saying, but I would like to hear a little more from him on one matter. There are only 35 or 40 beds available for desperate women in the whole of Devon and Cornwall and in four small districts in south Devon, 897 women have rung in for help. I hope that my hon. Friend agrees that local authorities could do an immense amount if they had safe houses and if the refuge service had more homes so that it could provide halfway houses for women. I am worried about the number of places, other than local authority places, where women can go.
Mr. Bercow: I am certainly concerned because my hon. Friend is right. There is, at least, an argument for ring-fencing the allocation of funds to ensure that local authorities' resources are used for that specific purpose. There is always a conflict between the principle of guaranteeing funding and local autonomy, but ring fencing should be considered. That there is still a lamentable inadequacy of supply throughout the country, particularly for those in remote communities, is not in dispute. Members of all parties should recognise the importance of doing what we can to provide further provision.
The Protection from Harassment Act 1997 provides the opportunity for restraining orders and that is welcome, because one of the problems that we have experienced is that those who have never been married to or co-habited with the violent partner have had limited protection. I believe that under the 1996 Act they have no recourse, but under the 1997 Act they do have at least some recourse, and that is welcome.
Some issues remain to be addressed. For example, there are substantial variations in the performance of different police forces and, even now, in the apparent lack of seriousness with which they pursue the evil of domestic violence. That was recognised by the Home Office. While recognising the principle of operational autonomy of individual forces, will the Minister tell us what the Government are doing to exhort good practice and to show those forces that are not doing as well as they should how they could do better—the carrot and stick approach. Let them see what other forces are doing and recognise their responsibilities.
Domestic violence and child protection indices are often not properly integrated. A clear majority of forces now monitor repeat victimisation, but it is only fair to record that around 40 per cent. of forces do not have systems and mechanisms in place to record repeat victimisation. It is essential that they do so because, unless the scale and frequency of offences is known, we shall not have an accurate picture and it is less likely that the robust measures, including those within the criminal justice system, for which my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes rightly calls, will be forthcoming.

61WH
As long ago as 1995, the interdepartmental group on domestic violence called for an inter-agency approach and that call has been repeated. Victims need to be assured that they will not be passed from pillar to post and that claims for confidentiality or anonymity will never be used as an excuse for apathy or inaction.
Some hon. Members said that in the overwhelming majority of cases the presumption was that contact should be granted. I believe that it is granted in around 98 per cent. of cases. However, in a recent significant study of the problem here and in Denmark, it was found that in England only seven of 53 women interviewed felt that they were able to make safe arrangements for contact between their violent ex-partner and their children. The overwhelming majority still felt at risk. Yet in 1997–98 the courts granted contact in 33,000 out of the 36,000 cases that came before them. That indicates that something is wrong.
One sometimes wonders whether judges are properly aware, as they should be, that supervised contact typically ceases to be supervised after six months, when it becomes unsupervised contact. Subsequently, unless the right decision was made in the first place, the children are at terrible risk.
When I was preparing for the debate, I was horrified to discover that not only are addresses sometimes given out in a palpably inappropriate way, but that addresses of women's refuges are given out. If a woman is in a refuge, fleeing violence and still trying to rebuild her confidence, it is unjust that a violent ex-partner should have the opportunity to find out where she is.
In his 1998 Adjournment debate, the hon. Member for Twickenham pointed out that relatively few hospital accident and emergency wards collect statistics on the injuries that are caused by the commission of domestic violence. Surely that information should be collected. While we do not want to impose an undue bureaucratic burden on hard-pressed hospital staff, we need to build an accurate picture that enables us effectively to publicise the nature and scale of the evil that is taking place and to build robust public support for measures to counteract it.
Section 60 of the Family Law Act 1996 confers a power on a third party to apply for an injunction in circumstances in which the victim did not have the confidence to do so herself. Unless I am mistaken, that section of the 1996 Act has still not yet come into force. We have all talked about the importance of encouraging victims to come to terms with what has happened, recognise that they are not to blame and seek help. However, some will not reach that stage, and we cannot abandon them to be the continuing and tragic victims of evil. Will the Minister clarify how soon the section will take effect?
With regard to immigrants, many women have been fearful of reporting cases of domestic violence lest they are chucked out of the country in the process. The Government said some time ago that they would consider the operation of a concession on that matter. Last night, I had the benefit of a productive exchange with the Minister, and she assured me that that concession is now operating. I hope that all hon. Members would say that that is absolutely right and proper.
62WH
The problem is now treated more seriously than ever before. Much good work is being done, but there is still a great deal to do. Domestic violence must not be tolerated. It must be clear that, without fail and wherever we can ensure it, the perpetrators will be apprehended, convicted and punished.
I conclude on a point of language. The hon. Member for Taunton said at the outset of her contribution that it would be a good thing if we could devise a better expression than "domestic violence". I think that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and hon. Members in the Chamber would be astonished to hear me call for the nationalisation of anything. However, in a sense, domestic violence needs to be nationalised. For far too long, it has been privatised—that is, regarded as something to be kept in the closet, which is scarcely worthy of significant public discussion. That is unacceptable.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes said, if large scale, continuing and appalling violence were taking place against black people—thankfully, such violence is greatly decreasing—it would be considered a national outrage and there would be a national outcry. We need to develop a similar moral imperative with regard to the discussion of domestic violence and the introduction of effective remedies against it.
My hon. Friend has performed a signal service to the Chamber by introducing this debate. I greatly enjoyed the contributions made by the hon. Members for Taunton and for Northampton, North, and I now look forward with eager anticipation, bated breath, and beads of sweat upon my brow, to hearing the Minister's response.
10.39 am
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mrs. Barbara Roche): I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen), not only on securing this important debate, but on the way in which he opened the proceedings, the content of his speech, the passion with which he outlined his views and the way in which he set the tone of the debate. Such speeches show how important the Westminster Hall procedure is, allowing us to hold a debate of this kind. I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) and the hon. Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) on their valuable contributions, both of which brought a wealth of interest and expertise on the matter to the debate.
I also congratulate the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow). Although he and I have debated on the radio since his appointment to the Home Office Front Bench—
Mr. Tom Levitt: Shadow.
Mrs. Roche: The shadow Front Bench, as my hon. Friend says—this is the first opportunity that I have had to welcome him to the shadow Front Bench, and I look forward to having a continuing exchange with him. His speech today, in his first outing—if I may put it that way—as shadow Front Bench spokesman on home affairs, was an outstanding contribution. I warmly congratulate him on that.

63WH
In some ways, it is right to say that even a few years ago we would not have been having a debate of this kind. Attitudes have changed remarkably over the past few years. When practising as a barrister, I remember being sent to court, as all new barristers are, to obtain civil injunctions. I remember the attitude among the police, the judiciary and also, perhaps, fellow members of the Bar—although this did not apply to everyone—that a case of this kind was a "domestic" and was not serious. Sometimes such cases would be greeted with ridicule, and dealt with in such a way as to suggest that they were really not important. As far as the criminal justice system was concerned, they were not an important aspect of the work. Attitudes have changed remarkably since then.
Attitudes have also changed remarkably in the House of Commons. When one looks back even further to past debates, and to some of the remarks that were exchanged, the attitudes of Members of Parliament—not surprisingly—reflected the attitudes of the society that they represented. There has been a sea-change since.
The hon. Member for Buckingham was kind enough to refer to my past involvement with the Select Committee on Home Affairs, of which I was fortunate enough to be a member when I first entered the House in 1992, and to the report that it produced on domestic violence. The report was unanimous, and I pay tribute to my colleagues from all parties who served on that Committee. It was interesting that, even while we were conducting the debate at that time and taking evidence from witnesses, there was still a feeling in some quarters that it was not a serious issue. That situation has changed, but I do not want to be complacent. There is still a long way to go, and I was struck by what the hon. Member for Taunton said about the attitudes of some young people on the subject.
I shall not rehearse the figures—which have already been graphically presented by hon. Members today—illustrating the extent of the problem and its effect on the victims or survivors, most of whom are women. We know that half of all women survivors are living with young children, that the children are regularly aware of what is going on, and that they are damaged by it. Often, as the hon. Member for Buckingham graphically illustrated, the abuser of the child's mother is also the abuser of the child. No one should tolerate that, and the Government are doing everything that they can to combat it.
I understand what was said about the term "domestic violence". One often has to point out that domestic violence is a crime; it should not, as the hon. Member for Taunton pointed out, have a cosy connotation. In many cases, we are talking about violent crime. Domestic violence is not a private matter in which agencies should not intervene—it is completely unacceptable. As hon. Members have rightly said, everyone should feel safe and secure in their own home, and victims of domestic violence should be able to expect that security.
I want to deal with some of the important issues that have been raised. Little has been said about judges, but their role is very important. When I was a young barrister on one of my first outings in court, the judge
64WH
made some outrageous remarks, which I shall not repeat, about a client of mine. That judge showed a woeful ignorance of the experiences of many women, but things are changing. The Judicial Studies Board, which is responsible for training the judiciary in England and Wales, is already making available comprehensive training on all aspects of domestic violence. Depending on their area of jurisdiction, all judges also attend continuous courses in criminal, civil and family law on a three-year cycle. Before district and circuit judges can obtain a family law "ticket", they must undertake "gateway" courses, of which the study of domestic violence forms an important part.
We must consider not only the judges but the court. As the hon. Member for Taunton pointed out, courts can be difficult places in which to give evidence, and a great deal of thought has recently been given to how support and protection for those who testify can be improved. That is why, as part of our published integrated strategy, we have increased funding for Victim Support. All hon. Members will have had experience of that organisation in their constituencies, and I pay tribute to it. Victim Support does tremendous work. It is a volunteer organisation in the very best sense of the phrase, and the volunteers give tremendously of their time and effort. That is why we included provisions to help all vulnerable and intimidated witnesses in the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999.
I accept the point that the hon. Member for Totnes made about delays, and we have introduced measures to reduce them. He is right to say that delay in the system increases pressure on the victim. It makes it less likely that she will want to proceed, and leaves her vulnerable to further intimidation and violence from the perpetrator, and perhaps even from neighbours, who may be unsure of the circumstances.
I want to deal now with child contact cases. I recognise the very important points that were made by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North, who has discussed the problem with my ministerial colleagues in the Lord Chancellor's Department. As she said, last year the Children Act subcommittee of the Lord Chancellor's Advisory Board on Family Law Matters issued a consultation paper about domestic violence and its relevance to contact disputes under the Children Act 1989. My hon. Friend was right that the paper suggested that although changes in legislation did not seem necessary at present, good practice guidelines might be issued to courts that deal with cases in which domestic violence is raised as a reason for refusing or limiting contact. The subcommittee reported earlier this year to the Lord Chancellor, saying what the good practice guidelines might be. As my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North noted, the draft guidelines were subsequently considered by the Court of Appeal in four cases, which were heard together, and on which judgment has been handed down.
The Lord Chancellor, with the President of the Family Division, are now considering what further action may be necessary. I undertake to bring to the attention of my ministerial colleagues the comments of the hon. Member for Taunton and of my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North and to pass on all the important points that have been made today. We want to avoid tragic cases such as that of Gina McCarthy, who was killed by her ex-husband following

65WH
court proceedings over contact with their young child. I know that these are serious matters, and that my colleagues will want to give proper weight to them.
The role of the Crown Prosecution Service was mentioned. For some years, the CPS has had a code of practice on the handling of cases of domestic violence. It is being revised, but it is not yet ready because we want to get it right. Among other things, it must take account of the review of the Crown prosecutors' code. It must also take account of the relationship of such cases with related civil proceedings, and special consideration must be given in those cases that involve children. I assure the House that that revision is taking account of consultation with other bodies such as the police and voluntary agencies such as Women's Aid. I know that some hon. Members who have close contact with the CPS in their own areas may want to make representations.
Often, as the hon. Member for Buckingham said, difficult issues are involved. For example, a victim may not wish proceedings to be taken against her partner if they are likely to result in some penalty. Such wishes must be taken into account, and there are no easy solutions. As hon. Members have said, it can be difficult to balance such needs with the likelihood that violence might become worse and more frequent without active intervention. Of course, children are often involved and their position must be taken into consideration.
Of course, there are very many examples of good practice. In Leeds, for example, the CPS is involved in an experimental domestic violence court—a dedicated court with relevant advice and expertise. The CPS is also involved in projects being funded under the £7 million violence against women initiative, part of the Home Office's crime reduction programme.
The role of the police is vital. I understand what the hon. Member for Totnes said about training and the number of officers responsible. I pay tribute to the many officers involved. They are dedicated to their task, which shows when one speaks to them about it. They have a stressful and traumatic job, which many officers do very well. I understand what was said about training, and about the fact that ensuring good practice will make it a national response.
In drawing up a Home Office circular on domestic violence, officials worked in close collaboration with the Association of Chief Police Officers. They also had the great advantage of expert comment from outside bodies such as Women's Aid.
Mr. Steen: I have listened with great interest to the Minister's speech, which has been extremely helpful. I wonder whether the Department has comparable figures on domestic abuse in other European countries. It would be interesting to know whether Britain has the worst record. Is there something wrong with our society or the mental health of Britain that is not shared by other European Union countries?
Mrs. Roche: I do not believe that that is the case, but I will send not only the hon. Gentleman, but all hon. Members present, details of any research or figures that we have. It is sometimes difficult to make comparisons, because domestic violence is not a category in itself. It is difficult to abstract figures if it comes under grievous or
66WH
actual bodily harm or common assault. Different EU countries have different ways of categorising offences and some systems are completely different from ours. However, if comparative figures are available, I will consider them, because the hon. Gentleman has posed an interesting question.
To return to the police response, earlier this year we issued the police with a new Home Office circular on addressing domestic violence. We have also introduced two indicators relating to domestic violence into the suite of police best-value performance indicators. One relates to the number of incidents attended resulting in an arrest; the other relates to the number of incidents that represent repeat victimisation. The police are getting the message that the Government and the Association of Chief Police Officers take domestic violence seriously. Equally, the police take the issue seriously.
We must ensure that all other agencies join in. Without wishing to use jargon, a multi-agency approach is important. The probation service and social services have a part to play. Our pathfinder programme for the probation service is considering what works in perpetrator programmes for those convicted of domestic violence. The hon. Member for Taunton raised that issue. I remember discussing the subject in a Home Affairs Committee report, and the issue was controversial in those days. It is still a complex area, but we need to look forward.
We must ensure that our legislation addresses the issues and is used effectively in both the criminal and civil fields. As a result of this and previous Governments, there is now a single set of civil remedies with non-molestation and occupation orders to deal with domestic violence and regulate occupation of the family home. A power of arrest must be attached where the threat of danger makes it necessary. Like many people who practised law previously, I have been scarred by the failure of injunctions that did not deliver because that power was not in place. The new offences of causing harassment and causing fear of violence have also been introduced.
Domestic violence is an important issue, which demands everyone's attention. The Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) takes it very seriously as part of his ministerial portfolio. He has recently taken part in a conference on the matter.
I again congratulate the hon. Member for Totnes on his introduction of this debate. I also congratulate all hon. Members who have taken part. People outside this place who follow our proceedings and who are, rightly, interested in the matter will, I hope, realise that the consensus in the House of Commons is that the issue is vital. We take it seriously and are determined to work together to make progress on it.

New Towns (South-East)
11 am
Mr. Tony McWalter: I have asked for today's debate because I represent a new town and I, and other Members of Parliament for similar places, are concerned about a range of matters. My object today is to establish that the aggregate effects of Government policies for new towns, particularly in the south-east of England, do not satisfactorily tackle the needs of those communities. I am happy for other hon. Members to intervene during my speech, because I want the debate to reflect the fact that the concerns that I shall describe go well beyond my constituency boundaries. In addition to providing an opportunity to discuss those concerns, perhaps the debate will allow the sense of grievance that has been growing to be aired.
I do not, of course, want to suggest that a Government Department has it in for new towns. Rather, a series of initiatives threatens, severally, the welfare of new towns. Jointly, those initiatives add up to an agenda for decline. I shall explain why new towns are right to feel worried about the future. I hope that the programme for redress that I shall recommend will commend itself to the Government, who are the successors of those who founded the new towns—largely successfully—50 years ago.
Why do new towns have a special problem, if, indeed, their foundation has been in many ways a success? Do they not incorporate features that many other towns and cities would want to emulate? The problems originated in the foundation of the new towns. They were not merely built, but planned. It must be admitted that much of that planning was successful, although that aspect of the matter is not what I am principally concerned with today. Much has happened since the planning of the towns, and it is those changes that have caused trouble.
First, and most obviously, the original new town residents have grown older. Facilities designed for an estate on which every family had children and where there were few elderly people might not be at all suitable for an elderly population. We must ask whether the original planners understood that one day their designs for new families would have to serve the needs of an older population. Did they approach their design in such a way as to provide for the needs of those aged over 70? What foresight did the original planners show? In some ways, their vision was defective.
A second dimension to the new towns problem is that the facilities have also grown older. Some of the original facilities were built to last and do not show undue signs of age. The council houses built in the late 1940s to Parker Morris standards, for instance, may well have needed significant maintenance in their lifespan, but they were built well and those who live in them find that such houses can be adapted to their needs as they grow older. Indeed, I live in one.
Other facilities lack such good design. To cope with a large number of young children in the new towns of the 1950s, system-built schools were put up. Those buildings depended heavily on asbestos as a prime building material, and most were jerry-built. In the first decade of the 21st century, they are mostly beyond their
68WH
natural lifespan, and what is worse, they have all reached that stage together. A system that was ageing in the 1990s has arrived at its dotage.
I do not suggest that the Government have not been aware of the needs of new towns. In my constituency, many schools have a mixture of old, and bright, new buildings, which have been constructed to a much higher standard. That is a tribute to the Government, who have tackled a problem that was heretofore ignored. However, the pace of change is too slow, and because of the scale of the problem, the overall effect, even given recent initiatives, is that the condition of the school estate worsens year on year. When buildings that were not well designed age together, much stronger measures are needed than hitherto.
A third dimension of the problem is that certain social changes were not envisaged by the designers of new towns, which is not surprising. They did not plan for communities to change organically, and action taken by successive Governments since then has constrained those communities in their need for such growth. The original designers of the blueprint had a vision of what constituted a community: a cluster of houses around some green space, in the middle of which would be a small shopping centre, to which local residents would walk; one large pub, which all members of the community could use; and a community centre to service a great variety of social activities. When one walks around Hemel Hempstead, one could be forgiven for wondering whether one is in Stevenage, because the same blueprint was adopted.
In some ways, the blueprint was resilient. The community centres, for example, play an important role in the life of new town communities, although in general they are used much more by older people than by the young. Younger people often hang around the shopping centres, which as a result do not have quite the community focus that the original planners envisaged. Indeed, the standard shopping trip now is not a walk to the neighbourhood shop, but a drive to a massive supermarket from a road that, even at that late stage, was planned in the belief that few residents would have cars. In some new town areas, the lack of car-parking facilities leads to ugly disputes among neighbours.
In many other ways, too, the original planners were unaware of how community needs would develop. In my constituency, we need a mosque for the 3 per cent. of my constituents who are of Muslim belief. At present, a private house, with inadequate facilities, fulfils that function. None of the original planners would have thought that the town might need such a facility somewhere central.
New towns need scope to grow organically. Successive Governments have, to put it mildly, constrained the capacity of new town residents to tackle the problems that they face in their daily lives. The problems inherent in the flawed blueprint that I described—as I said, it is flawed only in patches—have been exacerbated by a deficiency in resources, which is hard to explain clearly. Some people have even been confused about what can be meant by the title of this debate. I am thinking particularly of resources in land and of financial resources vouchsafed annually to those who control the destiny of our communities. The history of that resource allocation system is important. We must understand the operation—labyrinthine though it is—

69WH
of the Commission for the New Towns. If we do not, we will not understand the scale of the problem facing new towns today and why the Government must give the matter much more urgent attention.
Some people might ask, "Why are you worried about Hemel Hempstead? Isn't it fair that, in deciding the overall allocation of resources, the Government should take something away from such privileged areas, where there are unemployment rates of, for example, 1.6 per cent., and give it to others?" The trouble is partly that there has been a resource-abstraction mechanism from new towns since the Domesday book. The Commission for the New Towns has been required to take resources away from new towns in a way that is prejudicial to their interest. In the last year of its operation, the commission contributed around £160 million to the Exchequer.
Laura Moffatt: I thank my hon. Friend for allowing me to intervene on that important matter. I wish to focus on the issue of paying for new facilities, particularly housing, in new towns—many of which are twice the size originally envisaged. Is my h F aware that 500 new houses have been built in Crawley over the past five years for people who have been excluded from the market, for the economic reasons that he mentioned? How can such a problem be redressed in the new proposals for resource accounting, so that we continue to ensure that people who are excluded from the market because of the sheer enormity of housing prices can still live in our new towns?
Mr. McWalter: I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. She is good at making all hon. Members aware of the problems that Crawley new town faces. I shall deal later with housing resources—a significant source of trouble to some of us in the new town sector—and particularly with the definition of that phrase. There is a philosophical continuum between the old ideas of the Commission for the New Towns—CNT—and what is happening now.
A specific problem is that, once new towns were established, it was thought that they had been the recipients of considerable resources from the rest of the country. As they were new communities that had to make their way in the world, however, it was not deemed appropriate to vest all the functions of community governors in the local authorities. The view was taken that another authority had to be created, in addition to the normal local authority, to ensure that appropriate quantities of taxpayers' investment were pulled out to repay the rest of the country for having established such privileged habitations. The new agent, the CNT, was therefore established—consisting of those with experience of governing communities—and enjoined to ensure that the considerable resources ploughed into the new communities were not frittered away or wasted by immigrants from places such as the east of London. The CNT oversaw the inauguration of the new towns and, as they became more established, its role was to make a return to the nation of at least some of the resources that the new towns had, as it were, taken.
Barbara Follett: I thank my hon. Friend for allowing me to intervene in this important debate. As he will know, it cannot be said that the Commission for the New Towns discharged its remit in Stevenage very
70WH
well. It fragmented the ownership of the town centre in such a way that it is impossible to redevelop it properly. Will my hon. Friend and others who represent new towns consider what the now reformed Commission for the New Towns, which has been absorbed into English Partnerships, could do to redress the errors in its management of those new towns over the years?
Mr. McWalter: My hon. Friend well illustrates a reason for the problem. It is interesting that the financial memorandum under which the Commission for the New Towns was established instructed it precisely not to subject parcels of land to such treatment, but to work with the local council and community to ensure that such fragmentation and inefficiency in patterns of ownership would not occur. I agree that we must try to evolve a new way of going forward that will deal with the problem satisfactorily. Since securing the debate, and following recent discussions with the CNT's successor body, English Partnerships, I have however experienced some joy at the way in which it has responded to some of my requests. I can see the first signs of a brightening dawn on the horizon.
The interventions of my hon. Friends the Members for Crawley (Laura Moffatt) and for Stevenage (Barbara Follett) have established that I am not alone in thinking that the Commission for the New Towns did not do its job very well. My problem has been to identify the villains of the piece, which, in many ways, have been the terms of reference under which the CNT was set up. Paragraph 1.6 of its financial memorandum stated that the commission should attain the best price
obtainable in the market…The highest bid should normally be accepted.
Even though other paragraphs in the financial memorandum instructed the commission not to fragment land, the onus was on maximising financial return. As a result, the commission would fragment land if it was in its financial interest to do so.
Paragraph 2.1 of the financial memorandum stated:
The best price will normally be achieved by marketing assets in such a way as to maximise price competition
and that delay would be countenanced only if it would achieve "a significantly higher price".
Mr. Mike Hancock: The hon. Gentleman talked about the Commission for the New Towns. Its major problem was its indifference to consequences. I was heartened by his suggestion that English Heritage, which has assumed responsibility for such matters, might have a different approach. Is he convinced that indifference will not continue? Is he sure that the organisation will be able to resource the effects of 50 years of new town development? Does he believe that the Government will provide sufficient resources to ensure that?
Mr. McWalter: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his observations, although he should have referred to English Partnerships, not English Heritage. He may have made a few enemies, so I want to get him back in those people's good books fairly quickly. He asked whether the manager of the assets of the Commission for the New Towns will adopt a different strategy. If hon. Members were convinced that a different strategy

71WH
were required, I could almost move on. However, I should dwell on one feature of the commission's operation.
I have mentioned the commission's powers of delay. On my own patch, an extremely important area was required for the building of a 400 m hospital access road. The commission sat on the project for eight years. I was elected on 1 May 1997 and mentioned the subject in my maiden speech, so important was it to me and so dear was it to my heart. Following various meetings with all the interested parties—the health trust, the county council, Uncle Tom Cobleigh and all—and the commission, there would be, perhaps, three and a half weeks of extraordinary activity. I might almost describe it as hyperactivity. The job of a Member of Parliament is to get a train back on the rails when it comes off, and sometimes to give it a shove as well. However, in that case, the moment that the train went out of sight and around the corner, it ground to a complete halt. Four months later, preparation of the various promised documents was no further forward. I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage is listening to my remarks with some enthusiasm.
Barbara Follett: I echo my hon. Friend's comments. The same thing has happened and is happening in Stevenage, where English Partnerships now holds small but significant pieces of access land, preventing many developments to which it holds the key. In the mid-1980s, Stevenage attempted to wrest control of its destiny from the Commission for the New Towns under a Bill which, I am sorry to say, failed. It would be far better if Stevenage, rather than English Partnerships, controlled its own destiny.
Mr. Mc Walter: My hon. Friend anticipates one of my solutions. A danger of accepting interventions is that other hon. Members may filch one's best lines. Other hon. Members in the Chamber nodded at what she said: the way in which the CNT proceeded, which she described, is of course inappropriate, but it is not completely new. My father used to work on a building site, and sometimes the people on the site would find out that there was likely to be no work in the near future. As the desperate day grew ever closer, the work grew ever slower—until they found out that there would be new work. Then they speeded up and finished off the first work. People will react rationally. I suspect that employees of the Commission for the New Towns were in some areas a little like those people on the building site. If they did their job incredibly quickly, they would have no job left; so they did it rather less quickly.
As I have said, my main concern is that the framework in which the commission worked was invidious. The financial memorandum that describes the framework for its operations considered whether some land might, for instance, be sold to the National Trust. It seems to me that if land is of a suitable character to be sold to the National Trust, it is precious and hence tremendously important to a community. Indeed, the National Trust land at Ashridge Park is precious to the people of my constituency. However, the Commission for the New Towns took the view that a selected purchaser such as the National Trust—which figured as
72WH
an example in its financial memorandum—should be treated with caution, because of the risk of it not realising full market value. In other words, if something of strong environmental character is retained, lo and behold, that could blow it for realising the money intended to pay wages and honour obligations to the Treasury.
Mr. Bill Rammell: Does my hon. Friend agree that the guidelines that are given to English Partnerships contain at least a theoretical possibility of deviating from maximum return for the Treasury, but that the problem in practice is that the rule of deviating for community gain is not applied consistently?
Mr. McWalter: My chain of argument must be immensely logical, because my hon. Friends are seeing the next step, and hopping in to wrest it from me. As my hon. Friend says, there is potential for a change in methods. I emphasise that there was a conflict between those living in a new town and the old commission. A question arises about the extent to which the CNT's philosophy has been carried through into a new structure.
There are in some respects clear discontinuities, at least of principle. I have become aware of those only since requesting this debate. I was not optimistic about the changes. However, something happened with respect to the hospital access road site that I mentioned, which was so frequently booted into touch, to use a new metaphor, by the Commission for the New Towns. To be fair to English Partnerships, it took the view that it had continued the inefficiencies of the commission with regard to the site, and apologised wholeheartedly for those omissions. I was grateful for the honest approach to my sense of grievance on the matter.
The site for my hospital road, which, ironically, is called "Paradise"—I think that "hell" would have been more appropriate—is needed by the community. Its development would benefit the whole community, but that development must be strongly configured by the needs of the health service. The land adjoins the hospital. Therefore, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell) suggested, if there is a discontinuity in policy between the Commission for the New Towns and English Partnerships, a discontinuity in practice is also vital. That discontinuity in practice needs to be consistent, as my hon. Friend said. We cannot continue with a system in which there is a feeling that such decisions are made capriciously. I am therefore pleased that, in my constituency, English Partnerships has broken with the Commission for the New Towns tradition. Because of that, my object in seeking this debate has altered slightly. I should like to tell hon. Members something about that discontinuity, to give them some hope that things may be about to change.
English Partnerships has committed itself to treating the hospital-aspect land over which it has control in terms not of the financial return that it will make to the Treasury, but of the "best consideration" for both the community and the Treasury. Paragraph 69 of the English Partnerships financial memorandum, dated July 1997—the Government lost little time in addressing the matter after the election—requires it, as the successor authority to the Commission for the New Towns, to

73WH
obtain market value for any asset it sells, assessed in relation to the use proposed for the asset.
The paragraph provides a different way in which to think of the role of English Partnerships.
The precedent of taking into account "best consideration" rather than maximised value augurs well. It gives us the opportunity to overcome some of the problems that the communities and representatives of new towns have had with the old structure. The new financial memorandum will not prevent English Partnerships making significant sums for the Exchequer, but it will minimise the conflict between the community and itself by ensuring that it works closely with those in a locality. If English Partnerships emphasises that aspect of its brief, it will set a distance between itself and its predecessor authority. However, we should perhaps give it good notice that, if we get the train going and the authority stops it when it goes around the corner, we shall sack the driver.
When I called for this debate, I was not sure that the authority had the power to dispose of assets at less than the fullest market valuation; I now know that it has, and is prepared to use, that power. Following the "Paradise" decision, if I may call it that, there is clear water between English Partnerships and the Commission for the New Towns. In part that is thanks to the emphasis on urban regeneration in the relationship between English Partnerships and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, for which my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Ms Hughes), will respond in this debate.
I admit that I was prepared to castigate English Partnerships as a successor to the Commission for the New Towns. It seemed to be drawing down the maximum financial return from new town assets. However, there has been a change for the better on my own patch—and I hope in other new town constituencies as well. Members who represent new town areas will be pleased to work through the implications of those changes.
The history of the new towns suggests that the way in which they were set up resulted in little attention to fostering their own local democracy. That echoes the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage. In a standard local authority, the land bank was under democratic control, to be used for the public weal. In a new town, however, it was controlled by an authority that was interested only in maximising the financial return it made to central Government. That historical residue and that view of new towns is still with us, because people still think of them as privileged places that have consumed a lot of resources and owe a buck in return. It is important that we address that view of new towns when we consider other aspects in this debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Crawley said that a threat lay in the wings for new towns. That threat relates to the requirement for councils that are technically in a position called negative subsidy to pool profits from April 2002. Those profits would be redistributed around the nation, which all sounds very technical. I previously secured an Adjournment debate on this subject, so I do not need to add much to what I said then.
It is important to note that the concept of a housing resource, as it is currently defined by the DETR, is deeply invidious for new towns. Most of the resources of
74WH
new towns originated, in some way, from a housing source. Because housing was the new towns' only resource base, they will be left with nothing if the DETR adopts the historical definition for its concept of a housing resource. There may be odd bits and pieces of land that some vicar donated in the 17th century, but new towns do not have the same asset base as other communities. The DETR must take account of that point in its definition of housing resource. When, in addition, it ring-fences housing by saying that resources cannot be taken out of housing and used elsewhere, it denies new towns the capacity to develop an effective resource to address what I characterised earlier as the deficiencies of the new town blueprint.
That important matter is being articulated not only in this Chamber. For reasons lost in the mists of time, my local authority is called Dacorum; it has something to do with an Anglo-Saxon division of land. On its website, Dacorum council discusses the problems of current Government policy and the financial issues that face the borough council. It states:
Senior councillors and officers have been lobbying hard over the summer months to achieve
what amounts to an increase in the transition period that central Government will allow before they take all the money. That is what they have been "lobbying hard" for. I have been lobbying harder for something else: for the money not to be swiped at all. The Minister will be aware that I wrote rather passionately to her about that in my submission to a Government paper on the matter.
Dacorum council also says:
Meanwhile councillors have agreed proposals to plan savings of £2.25 million from the council's spending.
The council spends only £20 million, so £2.25 million is a cut of devastating proportions. The council continues:
We are expecting some good news about the amount of time the Council will be given to adjust to the changes which are being made by central government.
That reminds me of the story about someone who, on hearing about Nero's fiddling while Rome burned, asked, "What tune was it exactly?" When huge tranches of resources are being lost, it is beside the point to say, "We hope to have good news about the length of time that they will give us." Some people have suggested that cutting perhaps 40 per cent. from a council's budget, as proposed in the overall plan, could reasonably take 30 years—30 years of misery.
Laura Moffatt: Is my hon. Friend aware that Crawley council, for that very reason, faces a 25 per cent. cut in its services to the community? I suspect that that is happening in other new towns, too.
Mr. McWalter: I thank my hon. Friend for that observation. Initially, we examined the repercussions of the ring-fencing of housing resources and thought that it was especially bad for some new towns, but when we examined them further, we found that the new rules captured a greater number of new towns. The Government must consider the issue as a new towns issue.
Barbara Follett: In Stevenage, which is the oldest of the new towns and now well past middle age, most of the housing stock needs repairing. The council is grappling

75WH
with the problem of having to install new boilers, and for it to have to face a cut now is little short of disastrous.
Mr. McWalter: Those of us who are concerned about the problem initially wondered whether Stevenage had negotiated its way out of it. I am pleased to have my hon. Friend lobbying with me on these issues, although it is distressing to hear that her constituents are also subject to such cuts.
I do not mind if my local council loses money. I should qualify that: I do not mind if it loses money if it is wasting it; if it is not delivering best value; or if it can be shown that cuts will, in the end, provide better value for the resources that hard-pressed council tax payers put into local government services. I believe that the council in my patch would come out very well from a best-value assessment. In some respects, it has a claim to beacon status. For example, it anticipated the Government in setting up an advice centre so that the elderly would be fully aware of their entitlement under the minimum income guarantee. No pensioner lobbyists visited me yesterday, because nearly everybody in my area gets what he or she deserves.
The reality of a 5 per cent. cut in the voluntary sector, which is part of the proposals, is a reduction in resources for the blind, the mentally ill, the bereaved, the mentally handicapped, the homeless and the drug-dependent. Our meals on wheels service alone costs £750,000 to run, and will be dealt a severe blow by the proposals.
I challenge my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to say in replying to the debate that she will not remove resources from the local authority in my area except on the basis of an appropriate best-value assessment. I believe that such an assessment would leave all those services intact. One might ask what a borough council is doing providing such a wide range of services. The answer is partly that it has been proactive. It is in many ways a beacon council and should be honoured for its work, not savaged.
Barbara Follett: I should like to echo my hon. Friend's sentiments. Stevenage has tried to remedy some of the ills that the design of the new town has inflicted on it. There is strong evidence to suggest that, in new towns, boys are doing far worse than the national average, and we are building up severe problems for the future, when those young men attain adulthood.
In Stevenage, we set up the Raise project to try to motivate young men. That project is funded by the borough council, not by the education authority. We have also done a great deal of community safety work—in fact Stevenage is a beacon council because of that. I echo my hon. Friend in saying that such councils deserve better and deserve more.
Mr. McWalter: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is ironic that the arrangements for governing new towns revealed considerable scepticism on the part of those who constructed them about the ability of local people to get on and deliver a good quality of service to those in their locality. It seems that exactly the opposite has been so. In my local authority, there was also a
76WH
pioneering community safety partnership, which included the use of closed-circuit television in some of the difficult areas. In a wide range of ways, the local people have shown themselves to be fully capable of utilising resources sensibly.
A Minister responsible for social services visited my constituency, looked at the advisory services for the vulnerable and the elderly and commended them highly. It is peculiar that while one arm of government says, "This is terrific, so many people could learn from this practice", a DETR Minister can say, "I am sorry, but I have some bad news. Resources will have to be chopped away."
Laura Moffatt: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way once more; this will be my last intervention. In the light of the contributions to this important debate, what possible justification does he think there can be for taking money away from new towns and giving it to the Exchequer?
Mr. McWalter: I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. I am sorry that it will be her last, as her points have been most valuable. It feels as if the idea behind the old Commission for the New Towns persists and that some think, "These people got a lot; it is their turn to start ploughing it all back." Decisions are being taken without looking in detail at how their consequences will be borne.
Mr. Hancock: The hon. Gentleman is being amazingly tolerant and understanding in allowing so many interventions. The hon. Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt) asked him about the motives behind the pay-back syndrome. Is it a Government-driven, political policy or a Treasury-led initiative? Historically, nobody has been able to budge that problem.
Mr. McWalter: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. A sensible Government policy has had an unexpected backwash in new towns. When I was a councillor, the council made a profit on its council houses and used it to lower the overall rates. It made bigger profits by refusing to maintain houses properly. I understand where the Government are coming from in that respect, and it is vital that such policies are addressed, but it is very different when a council is delivering the services and policies wanted by those in central Government, when wearing all their other hats.
I must add one other thing. Some local authorities have been managed very successfully, but have not been able to participate in central Government programmes of allocating resources. The local authority on my patch has made no demand on housing improvement programme funds for many years—not because it does not have a housing programme, but simply because it knows that it can generate the resources from within, and manage without going cap in hand to the Treasury.
People must recognise that Government policies are running against each other. That is why, when I first called for the debate, I wanted a reply from a Minister who had a specific role in joining up government. I will be honest; I wanted a Treasury or Cabinet Office Minister, who, theoretically, has that responsibility, so that we could examine the cumulative effects of all the

77WH
issues, and not simply financing. That is why I use the word "resources" and not "financing". We are talking about land banks, housing assets, assets for leisure and culture, and so forth.
I shall be brief on my final point about the problems facing new towns, though it could be the subject of a further Adjournment debate if we do not receive a satisfactory response. It originates again from the DETR, which is responsible, in my area, for providing resources to Hertfordshire county council through the so-called standard spending assessment. That allocation of resources is related to the expense of hiring people to do a job.
My hon. Friend the Member for Crawley, who I know must leave the debate soon, mentioned the high cost of labour in the south-east, which has repercussions for the problem areas that we identified. The Government have decided not to uprate the standard spending assessment component that relates to the cost of labour, even though it costs much more in the southeast than elsewhere. I find that strange. One DETR Minister to whom I mentioned that point said, "Well, it would cost a lot of money and you are doing very well." If it costs an extra 6 per cent. year on year to hire teachers or porters, for example, that should be regarded as the going rate. Even if that is paid, we are not doing particularly well; we are just keeping a standard level of service, which is what the SSA is supposed to be about.
In Hertfordshire, cuts in next year's SSA could amount to about £7 million. Of that, about £4 million is for education and about £1 million bounces back on to new towns. I do not know the figures for other authorities represented by hon. Members present today, but that area cost adjustment is a further deprivation of resources from new towns. It originates, as I said, from the DETR, and it is important that the DETR takes note of it.
The cumulative picture, which is the result of all the different pressures, is of the erosion of the resource base, so that new towns face problems in addressing the problems of the community. They already have inherited problems and have had to cope with three successive whammies on their financial status. The first relates to the continuing depletion of resources through the aegis of the Commission for the New Towns—now part of English Partnerships; the second is the depletion of resources through the negative subsidy that authorities issue; and the third is depletion as a result of the area cost adjustment.
The result is a structure under which the Government's role in providing resources to people who do a job for our communities is compromised. Local schools, for example, require resources. If the Government, with a blast of trumpets, give £40,000 to a school to solve its problems, but squeeze that resource through technical adjustments to the new earnings survey component of the SSA of the area cost adjustment, we know that the latter policy will never hit the headlines. It is, however, a real issue for people in our localities, and the Government must address it as energetically as possible.
11.54 am
Mr. Bill Rammell: I am aware that time is short, so I shall try to be brief.
78WH
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter) on putting the case so well. His arguments on a matter of real concern are shared by all hon. Members with new town constituencies.
Most new town communities were built at the same time and are deteriorating at the same rate. New towns have never possessed the land-bank assets of more traditional communities, and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, and its equivalent Department under previous Governments, has not given that sufficient recognition.
I shall deal with the issues in turn: first, the role of English Partnerships and the Commission for the New Towns, which the new town communities resent, as the organisation is seen as a remote and unaccountable asset-stripper—£162 million a year goes back to the Treasury. My hon. Friend was right to say that the rules allow deviation from those returns to the Treasury, but they are not applied consistently and are not made available to the local community or to local community organisations. Many community organisations that are trying to develop their own facilities, especially for sport, are being given conflicting advice, information, deadlines and time scales by English Partnerships, which is unacceptable. I can best sum up the organisation's remoteness and lack of accountability by recounting what was said when I intervened on a constituent's behalf and contacted an official of English Partnerships about the sale of a piece of land over which it was negotiating with a community organisation. The official, who will have to remain nameless, said, "Well I will talk to you, but you must realise that technically it is none of your business." For a member of English Partnerships to speak in that way to a representative of the local community—I am not getting on my high horse and speaking of myself as an individual—is unacceptable.
I agree, too, with my hon. Friend's argument about the area cost adjustment. There are significant extra costs in the south-east, and we thought that we had a "done deal" when the ACA was put on hold until 2002, but last year's earnings survey was implemented within the ACA, which resulted in a cut for Essex. This year, when the earnings survey shows a rise for Essex, it is suggested that it will not be implemented. That is inconsistent and unreasonable, and might be open to challenge.
The most important issue is that of resource accounting for councils that, technically, are in negative subsidy. My hon. Friend and I have spoken about the matter in the House before and we have had welcome access to Ministers. It is a huge issue and hon. Members have described the impact in their communities. In my local community, £3.1 million being taken out of a general fund annually of £12.6 million means either huge cuts or huge increases in council tax. I do not deviate from the Government's principle that tenants should not, as a rule, subsidise the general fund, but the impact on a handful of local authorities is disproportionate and unjust.
The Government have listened, particularly about phasing, and I welcome that, but I am worried that the impact of the proposals will come in two stages—first, on 1 April next year, which will have a major impact on my local authority and, secondly, on 1 April 2002. The way in which those two stages will be financed differs.

79WH
The first stage will be met by the local council's own housing revenue account; the second stage will be met from the national pool. The impact on my local authority is enormous. If it is to take advantage of phasing, the money must come from its housing revenue account and from rent payers in Harlow. As that is the Government's objective, I hope that my hon. Friend will listen to our concerns and ensure consistency so that both stages of phasing are financed similarly through the national pool.
Ministers have listened to us about what is called the item 8 credit transfer. It is the element that takes account of the set-aside capital receipts that were previously used for non-housing purposes. There was an assumed investment income to the housing revenue account, which is the main cause of negative subsidy. We went down that road because we did not have the asset base; the only asset available was the set-aside capital receipts.
The Government have listened, particularly through the local government technical working party, but I am worried that the concession that the Government are considering will apply only when a local authority becomes debt free. The trouble with that historic method of financing is that if we do not allow authorities that become debt free to have that assumed transfer nullified, it will not meet the needs of that small number of local authorities that have a real problem.
Finally, about 100 councils are hit by the negative-subsidy problem. For a handful of local authorities, predominantly new town authorities, the issue is severe. Even at this late stage, I hope that the Minister will go further. I hope that she will ask her ministerial colleagues to reconsider the matter to see what support can be offered.
12.1 pm
Mr. Mike Hancock: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter). I do not question the time that he took to introduce the debate because, logically and understandably, he raised issues that affect hundreds of thousands of people and many local authorities.
If a lesson is to be learned from today's hour-and-ahalf debate, it is that many people and local authorities are begging the Government to think again about that clawback. To take £162 million a year from new towns will deprive them of the opportunity to put into their communities what was not included when they were built. Those councils will not be able to prop up the communities that have aged with the new towns, or to take account of the problems that have resulted. For instance, community centres that were built for young people now no longer attract the youngsters because older people are using them, and the buildings do not adapt to use by varying age groups.
If a lesson is to be learned, surely it is that we must look at what has happened in the past 50 years, particularly in the south-east. We must not allow the new town syndrome to be repeated elsewhere in the same format. As a local councillor, I represented an authority that created two new towns, one of which, Leigh Park in Havant, is the largest council estate in Europe. We simply built houses, one or two schools, the
80WH
odd pub, one community centre and a shopping parade. We then left it to the community and the small local authority of Havant to pick up that enormous baby. Those 30-odd thousand council houses in Portsmouth were able, for the best part of 20 years, to service many other activities from the housing revenue account. I cannot remember the general rate fund being used to support any activity on those large estates outside the city.
As leader of Hampshire county council, I was responsible for the development of Basingstoke, under which its population increased from 50,000 to more than 125,000, and the Andover development, under which 40,000 people from London moved into a small rural community with homes, schools and very little else. There was no infrastructure. Parliament and the Government need to learn lessons from the examples that have been mentioned today. It is not good enough to continue in the same way.
I am heartened by what two hon. Members said about the Government's new relationship to new towns—the take-over by English Partnerships, as opposed to English Heritage. I hope that that will come to pass; if it does, it will be a more positive, visionary and, perhaps, understanding approach. However, should new towns be run in such a way that the people who make key decisions—on the release of assets, the selling of land and achieving best value—are not part of the community where those decisions will have the greatest effect? There is no financial gain if one does not want to sell land simply because it makes good sense for the community for it not to be sold.
Where is the local authority's ability to resist English Partnerships' demands to sell assets? A mechanism that allows the local authority and the interests of the community to override the new relationship between new towns and English Partnerships is essential. Otherwise, sadly, the problems will persist. As hon. Members have said, some local authorities could lose 10 to 25 per cent. of their spend. Local communities will suffer, because desperately needed replacements and upgrading of property and other assets will not be undertaken. Ultimately, that will cost more money. Some support for the community will be lost, and it will not easily be replaced.
I hark back to what the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead said about living in a Parker Morris house and the standards that apply to such buildings. I wish that some of the properties that are now being built by housing associations could claim that in 40 years' time they will, perhaps after a little adaptation, still be fit for habitation, as are many Parker Morris houses.
When the developments were built, the people who were going to live there were not trusted. It was as if we as a nation said, "We will create new towns, but we will not trust these people who have been shipped in from cities such as Portsmouth, Southampton and London—we will put in an overseer who will control the way in which the towns develop, grow and resource themselves." That approach has failed miserably, and we must do something about it now, before it is too late.
I am glad to have had the opportunity to play a part in this debate, and I know that many of my colleagues would have liked to be present. I plead with the Minister

81WH
to respond to the issues that have arisen. If we do not do something now, we will run out of time; resources will go and will be lost for ever.
12.7 pm
Mr. Damian Green: I join other hon. Members in congratulating the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter) on securing the debate and on his full exposition of the problems.
Annunciators throughout the Palace are displaying the debate title, "New Towns (South-East)", and it struck me that many visitors will think that Parliament is considering building more new towns in the south-east of England. A chill is probably going down many spines at the prospect of such an ill thought out policy.
I had intended to divide my contribution between the details that were discussed by the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead and other hon. Members and more general issues about development in the south-east. In fact, many of the general points that I wanted to make arise in relation to the problems that the hon. Gentleman explained in introducing the debate.
I was interested to hear the hon. Gentleman say that, although he thinks that the new town concept was good and supports the ideas that lay behind it, current events represent an agenda for decline, and that even if we stick to the concept of what might be called oxymoronically the "old new towns"—or "middle-aged new towns", as they have been described—it is clear that something has gone wrong in the past 50 years.
When the Minister and her colleagues develop policy, on both existing new towns and wider planning issues, they must ask whether that agenda for decline has been a result of human error or whether there was always something systemic that would ensure that, over time, things would go wrong. One can draw conclusions about the undesirability of applying general principles too specifically across areas of the country in which local communities may have widely different needs. Those conclusions should enable the Minister to respond specifically to the points raised about new towns, and give her pause for thought when she considers the wider policies that the Government are proposing, not least in relation to the south-east of England.
The hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead spoke of problems, which are now very apparent, based on the hubristic application of once-fashionable nostrums. He talked about asbestos, school buildings, and so on. I am sure that all hon. Members have arrived at a school in their constituency, taken one look at the roof—knowing within 10 or 15 years when the school was built—and realised that they were about be told that that school had to spend a lot of money on its roof, because of permanent problems with buckets in corridors. That should serve as a warning to Governments not to apply the fashion of the day wholesale, everywhere, especially if some local wisdom suggests that what may appear a good solution 50 miles up the road may not be the best solution there.
The hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead made the point that one of the problems with the new towns, as they were set up, was that they were not planned for organic growth. It seems paradoxical to talk about planning for organic growth, but I think that the hon.
82WH
Gentleman meant that not enough flexibility had been built into the system to enable different towns to grow in different ways, and to become different types of towns.
The hon. Member for Stevenage (Barbara Follett) made the point that Stevenage and Hemel Hempstead look as though they come from the same blueprint. They may now be very different communities with different needs, but it is obvious that someone put down a single blueprint and said, "That is what we are going to adopt." That, too, should warn Governments against hubris, because every age has its blueprints and its visionaries who say, "This is the way to develop our towns." Many of them are genuine visionaries who produce a quality of life that did not exist before. However, Governments should be more modest about applying those blueprints.
The hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead made the point that resources are not only about money. He said that he was not just appealing for more money to be given to his area, although I note that, as one would expect, he went on to do so, and that other hon. Members joined in. He said that the assembly and provision of land—and I assume, by extension, the provision of other infrastructure that allows communities to grow successfully—are also vital to the planning process.
The lesson that the Minister and her colleagues could draw is that it is extremely short-sighted to plan for growth in communities simply by using housing numbers, without ensuring a supply of infrastructure before people arrive to live in those houses, and a future flow of the forms of infrastructure that make life tolerable in those communities. That mistake has clearly been made in the past, for which communities around the edge of London are now paying the price. Please, let us not repeat those mistakes. I am afraid that the Government seem determined to do so, judging by their current policies for the south-east.
The central question asked by the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead was who are the villains of the piece? Why are things going wrong in the various new towns? He made a good point when he said that, in some ways, the problem lies with the Commission for the New Towns' original terms of reference and their somewhat mechanical application. One cannot blame the commission for that. One should not condemn public officials for fulfilling terms of reference laid down by Parliament: if the terms of reference are wrong, that is the fault of Parliament and the Government.
However, I accept that, if a blueprint is established on a national or regional basis, the communities that are subject to those terms of reference are likely to suffer. The hon. Member for Stevenage said that her constituency has tried to grab back some power, so that local people can take the decisions that they regard as appropriate to their own community. I support that idea entirely, and it is certainly the way ahead. In the past, we have centralised too much, and we should try to reverse that process.
Another lesson that I hope the Minister will learn concerns the role of the regional development agencies. It has been fascinating to listen to hon. Members—mainly Labour Members—complain that problems in their constituencies are the result of power being taken

83WH
away from, or not given to, councils, and given instead to relatively unaccountable and distant public bodies, whose agenda may differ from that of local people.
Mr. Rammell: Will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that those problems are long-standing, and that at least we now have a Government who are listening? I spent 12 years as a councillor in a new town authority, and during that time the then Government simply did not listen.
Mr. Green: The hon. Gentleman says that the Government are listening, but my point is that, in the past two or three years, they have been in the throes of setting up RDAs, which will be remote from most communities. RDAs will have extensive powers; they are already able to take decisions that should properly be taken by local councils. Those wretched institutions will not survive beyond the next general election, but were they to do so, the hon. Gentleman's and my successors would ask why those institutions were given such powers. They would ask why decisions taken by distant, remote and relatively unaccountable bodies had led to money being taken away from their local communities, or to the imposition of the wrong type of development.
One need not look into a crystal ball. The same wave of goodwill and good intent that accompanied the setting up of the RDAs also accompanied the creation of the Commission for the New Towns. As the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead said, the commission seems to have introduced an agenda for decline. Moreover, its decisions—now under English Partnerships—are arbitrary and unfair.
As the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell) pointed out, many who work for the commission display an intrinsic arrogance. They do not regard as legitimate the intervention of local representatives—be they hon. Members or councillors—in decisions that, in their view, properly belong to them. Were the RDAs to have a long-term existence, I am certain that that is how they would develop. Hon. Members and, above all, local authorities would discover that a bad decision had been taken in terms of planning, which should be responsive to local needs, and the preservation of proper local democracy and representation. I urge the Minister to take that lesson from our debate and the problems that it has revealed in new towns. Policies are being implemented that will replicate many of the problems that arose because of the way in which new towns were set up.
The thread that runs through our debate is the need for local sensitivity, and the Government would do well to take account of that. They should not continue in a direction that is fundamentally centralising but should devolve power to local authorities and communities.
12.20 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Beverley Hughes): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter) on securing the debate. He and other hon. Members have raised many
84WH
important points in excellent speeches. Notwithstanding the fact that the debate has raised serious issues, it has been good-humoured and illuminating. I pay tribute to the assiduous way in which my hon. Friend pursued the benefit for his town, as have other hon. Members. My hon. Friend is a veritable terrier; I hope that he will take that as the compliment that is intended.
My hon. Friend started by analysing the issues facing new towns, including the ageing population and infrastructure, and specific problems concerning school buildings. The hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) asked whether there are systemic problems peculiar to new towns or whether their problems are more general. He failed to see the obvious answer, which I shall give and to which my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell) referred. Many of the problems facing new towns, although they had a specific genesis and period of development, undoubtedly stem from 20 years' neglect of infrastructure, development and opportunity, and local government's inability to have an impact on the issues. New towns share some of the problems faced by inner cities, market towns and coastal towns following a lack of investment, and I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead acknowledged the extent to which that is starting to change under the present Government, with the additional resources that we are directing into a variety of places.
It is unfortunate that the hon. Member for Ashford tried to hijack this important debate for party political purposes when all other hon. Members in this Chamber were trying to speak with one voice across party boundaries about the issues facing their towns. It is a bit rich for him to criticise the Government for establishing regional development agencies when the establishment of the worst sort of quango, with no local government representation, was a hallmark of the previous Government's record.
My hon. Friends referred to some important matters and I shall try to do them justice. They referred to English Partnerships and the Commission for the New Towns, the changes to housing finance and the area cost adjustments.
I am aware of the frustration, which my hon. Friends graphically described and which was audible from the passion in their voices, arising from the legacy of the Commission for the New Towns. The description of the commission operating as a resource-abstraction mechanism since Domesday may be a triumph of passion over accuracy, but it shows the strong feelings that have been generated.
Since coming into government we have tried to bring together, under the umbrella of English Partnerships, the Urban Regeneration Agency and the Commission for the New Towns. That is never easy. We have not been able to find the legislative time to make them one entity legally, so financially they have to operate as two entities. However, by bringing them together we have tried to change the culture that has been operating. Many important historic issues are involved relating to how the land that the CNT controls was assembled and where the resources for it came from, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead said.

85WH
Notwithstanding memorandum and legal requirements, much depends on the political context in which those bodies operate. I am grateful that my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead has acknowledged that he has seen a shift over the past couple of years under EP and because of a different political climate in—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. John McWilliam): Order. I do not want to interrupt the hon. Lady, as time is short, but if she speaks toward the microphone the Hansard transcribers will be able to hear her.
Ms Hughes: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
We have introduced new draft financial memorandums to deal with some of the issues that hon. Members have raised, especially those relating to less than best price and to openness, accountability and partnership with local authorities. Land has always had to be sold for the highest price, although under the previous Government there was an aggressive drive and requirement for the bodies involved to achieve that. We have tried to change that culture, and I am pleased that my hon. Friends recognise that that is starting to happen.
One initiative that will help is the English Partnerships initiative for town strategies, which I hope will deal with some of the points made by my hon. Friends the Members for Harlow, for Stevenage (Barbara Follett) and for Hemel Hempstead. In that initiative, EP will reconsider how its remaining land assets can be used by forming strategies in partnership with local authorities, which relates to the point made by the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock). I am pleased that local authorities, including Dacorum, which recently met English Partnerships to start developing a town strategy, will be able to take that forward.
The process is beginning, and I hope that my hon. Friends will recognise that it involves a change of culture. We recognise that land assets need to be used for the benefit of the community and are trying to reinforce that politically. The new town strategy initiative is an important vehicle for doing so. For all sorts of historical and legal reasons, land cannot be transferred, but I accept the argument that such assets should be used in pursuit of benefits to the community.
86WH
Hon. Members also mentioned the major repairs allowance and negative subsidy, an issue on which two substantial debates have been held, in one of which I replied to my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow. I know that my hon. Friends accept the basic starting point that it is wrong for council tenants to cross-subsidise general services and that subsidies for housing are a national resource that must be used to meet housing need nationally where need is greatest.
It is slightly unusual to feel that I am defending a policy that many people would consider good news. The extent of the major repairs allowance that councils will receive to offset the subsidy is significant for all the councils represented by hon. Members present.
I appreciate that the transitional measures are critical, and on behalf of hon. Members present I shall take back to my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning the view that has been expressed that special circumstances apply in the case of a few new towns. Decisions are about to be taken; they are not yet final.
The final point that was raised related to the area cost adjustment. Hon. Members are aware that the information resulting from the new earnings survey would, if applied straightforwardly, result in a major redistribution of resources across different sorts of authority. As such a redistribution would be significant, and as we have promised stability, we consulted local authorities. No decision on the matter has yet been finalised, and we are considering several options, including whether the data will be applied and how the distribution might be made less dramatically different. We shall announce a decision shortly, having had a lot of feedback from local authorities.
I remind hon. Members that no authority will face a cut in its revenue support grant for this year. The spending review 2000 gave a generous overall settlement of approximately 5 per cent. Hertfordshire and other authorities in areas represented in this Chamber will receive substantial budget increases. Given the experiences of those councils up to 1997 and the money that they have received in real terms during the first three years of the present Government, those increases demonstrate clearly our commitment to increasing the resources of local councils, to deal with the precise issue that they raise: improving services for local people.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I ask hon. Members who do not wish to remain for the next debate to leave quickly and quietly.

Job Losses (Blyth Valley)
12.30 pm
Mr. Ronnie Campbell: It was interesting to hear the back end of the previous debate. If we had some work in the north-east, there would be no need to build towns in the south-east—an argument that has been advanced by some hon. Members who represent southern constituencies.
This has been a torrid month for job losses in Blyth Valley. During the past two months, we have lost more than 500 jobs—530, to be precise. Courtauld's Ladieswear closed a few weeks ago, with the loss of 300-odd jobs. The rapid employment force is trying to find jobs for those people, but I do not know how many have been fixed up. I hope that the number is big, but I am not sure whether it will be. Valeo Security, a car component firm that makes locks, has also closed. Both firms were lost to foreign competitors. The managing director of Courtauld's told us that the stuff that was made in Blyth Valley was 70 per cent. cheaper to make in Sri Lanka, so the company is off there to make its ladies garments. Valeo Security decided to go to Czechoslovakia. I understand that at least two of the workers who were recently made redundant by Valeo went to the new location to train the local workers on how to work the line, as the saying goes. It is ironic that the company is establishing a factory abroad but the workers have to be trained by our people after they have lost their jobs. Unfortunately, that is the way things are today. At the time of the relocation, I asked the managing director whether the decision related to the single currency or the pound, but he said that although the pound was a bit high, such matters were not the first priority. The argument of both companies was that they could do it cheaper abroad. Obviously, that was our problem: cheaper wages abroad.
On top of those losses, during the past two years we have lost Wilkinson Sword to Germany and Cramlington Textiles has gone into liquidation. Somebody wanted to buy the factory and machines and to employ at least 80 workers, although there had been 300. However, the liquidator sold the machines to someone who sold them abroad. Blyth power station, which lies in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Mr. Murphy), closed completely in January. Half of our job losses occurred in the Port of Blyth, where several hundred workers have been paid off during the previous year.
In total, there have been 3,000 job losses in Blyth Valley and only 1,000 gains in two years. That is a significant loss, but until now we have not grumbled or complained. However, we have had a right rough couple of months in which 530 jobs have been lost and we have received no help at all. The employment force is trying to get these girls and boys fixed up with jobs, but I do not think that it is being very successful.
Mr. Denis Murphy: I congratulate my hon. Friend on having secured this important debate. Does he agree that high unemployment over many years, which has led to severe economic problems, has meant that car ownership is among the lowest in the United Kingdom, and that public transport is therefore more important? Does he agree that the single biggest
88WH
improvement to public transport within the constituencies of Wansbeck and Blyth Valley would be the reopening of passenger rail services of the Blyth and Tyne line? That would bring huge economic benefit to not only our two constituencies but, the whole of southeast Northumberland. Will he join me in pressing the Government to give a firm commitment, in principle, to agreeing the scheme before the next general election?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. John McWilliam): Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that interventions should not be mini speeches.
Mr. Campbell: I do not mind that, as my hon. Friend made the valid point that the rail link would also come through my constituency. I am all in favour of that. I do not know whether the money for the rail link will be forthcoming; we will have to wait and see. Perhaps the Minister could answer that question when he replies to the debate.
My hon. Friend has prompted me to talk about two areas in south-east Northumberland—Blyth Valley and Wansbeck, which have 12 wards. Eight of those wards are among the most deprived 10 per cent. in the country, and five of them are in Blyth Valley. Wansbeck is the 18th most deprived constituency in the country, and Blyth Valley is the 88th most deprived constituency in the country. My hon. Friend's constituency of Wansbeck has the benefit of £3 million from the neighbourhood fund, but I cannot understand why Blyth Valley did not get any money, as it has five wards among the worst 10 per cent. in the country. As the Government decided to make it a district in which there are two wealthy wards—in Cramlington, which is a new town—the poor ones in Blyth Valley town have to stay poor. I cannot understand how the Government can justify that. The Minister may be able to justify that, but he gets paid for it. I have to tell people in my constituency, which has five wards among the 10 per cent. most deprived in the country, that because of the good wards in Cramlington, they have to stay poor.
Last week, I went to a meeting about the Barnett formula. Lord Barnett said, "Don't even think about trying to apply the Barnett formula, as it is known in Scotland and Wales, in England." He believes that money should be used to tackle poverty and deprivation at source. If it exists in Blyth town, money should go there. Money has not come to Blyth town because the Government's calculations show that it has a rich part. Blyth Valley is split in two—the old town of Blyth, and the new town of Cramlington. As one is rich and one is poor, the poor part has to stay poor. That is not good enough. The Labour Government were not elected to leave areas poor. Lord Barnett was right—we should tackle the areas that are poor. Will the Minister reply to that? Will he do anything about it? If not, will our right hon. Friend the Member for Hull—the Minister knows who I mean—
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Alan Johnson): Our right hon. Friend the Member for Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) the Deputy Prime Minister.
Mr. Campbell: Well, whichever Hull it is, will he do something about it?

89WH
I want to return to the rapid response team, which is doing an excellent job. I do not have the figures for what it has done. I also want to return to the issue of job losses. A report in the local paper said that, in Stoke, Michelin was to close with the loss of 950 jobs. Local papers, television and "Newsnight" all talked about the terrible job losses in Stoke. The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry was under a lot of pressure, although we had not put any pressure on him. He launched a £110 million aid programme for Stoke, which suffered those job losses. The people of Stoke have my sympathy, but we have suffered 500 job losses and not had such a response. I hope that the Minister can tell me what is going on and why we have not received a similar response.
I remember the hullabaloo about the closure of Rover and all the money that would be invested to save jobs or retrain people. We lost 500 jobs a couple of months ago, but we have had nothing. What is going on? Why does the north-east not receive its fair share of money, as everyone else does? The Minister can tell us whether we are getting any money.
The Government must acknowledge that serious economic and social problems in the north-east need to be addressed, especially in Wansbeck and Blyth Valley. We have no status and do not benefit from urban development or city challenge money. Unlike Tyneside, Newcastle and south Tyneside, south-east Northumberland does not even have an enterprise zone. Blyth Valley and Wansbeck cannot even get a call centre, because the companies would not get free rent or any encouragement to go there; they all go to Newcastle and Tyneside, which have enterprise status. That status must be expanded to include south-east Northumberland, where we need help.
We cannot go on losing jobs and expect people to vote Labour at the next election when the Government totally ignore them. The Minister did not ignore Stoke—it got £110 million—but he is ignoring Blyth Valley and Wansbeck. He cannot ignore me, because I am telling him that he is totally out of order. We are not getting a fair crack of the whip.
Mr. Denis Murphy: My hon. Friend mentioned the economic problems of both our constituencies. Does he agree that, if our areas had been allowed to stand alone, we would have received objective 1 funding as a result of the poverty and deprivation?
Mr. Campbell: My hon. Friend is right. Devolution is at the hub of the argument. When devolution took place, the north-east lost out. People should make no mistake about that. When the Welsh Assembly and Scottish Parliament were set up, money had to go to Wales and Scotland. Wales received objective 1 funding and millions of pounds were put into Wales, but we got objective 3 funding, which was very little in comparison. That is the problem.
The aim of the national neighbourhood strategy is to arrest deprivation. The situation in the present climate is desperate. Some neighbourhoods in the north-east, including your constituency Mr. Deputy Speaker, are deprived. That needs to be addressed. I believe that your area Mr. Deputy Speaker, received a few million pounds from the neighbourhood strategy. Wansbeck and
90WH
Easington got some funds, but Blyth Valley did not. Unfortunately, we have a case to make. The town has one of the lowest numbers of start-up businesses per head in the country. People do not come to start businesses in south-east Northumberland because we are not in an enterprise zone. We do not have anything to offer. We have only a bit of land.
We need some incentive. People from my constituency are coming down to see the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on 16 November. They are coming down full of hope, but I have a feeling that they will go back disappointed. I do not think that they will get anything at all. The trouble with this Government is that their views are set in stone and they do not see some of the problems. They do not listen to their Back-Bench Members. They have never listened to me. I have had a couple of debates about the north-south divide, although I promised not to mention that.
This is a problem that Ministers must address. It is no good the Secretary of State saying that there are enterprise zones all over the north-east, as there is not one in Blyth Valley or Wansbeck. There is not one in south-east Northumberland and we are demanding one. Of course we can demand, but we may not get one. That is the problem we face. Funding is urgently needed in these areas. The Government's regeneration initiative should apply to areas that are in need.
I do not knock the new deal for one minute. It has done a good job in getting young kids to work or involved in some sort of training. Not all of them have been good schemes and not all have resulted in jobs, but it is a good idea and I do not knock it. With all these kids getting on to these schemes, youth unemployment has gone down in my constituency, but adult unemployment has risen by about 10 per cent., according to the latest figures. We need action and we need some money. I only hope that the Minister will reply in the affirmative and give me and my constituents some encouragement and hope for the future.
12.47 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Alan Johnson): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell) on securing the debate, which is obviously of great importance to other hon. Friends in the area. That is underlined by the fact that my hon. Friends the Members for Wansbeck (Mr. Murphy) and for Easington (Mr. Cummings) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster) are present. I readily accept that my hon. Friend is a passionate advocate for his area and his constituents. I hope that I can clear up some of the ambiguities in the short time available.
My hon. Friend referred in his final comments to an increase in adult unemployment. That is not borne out by the figures that I have. I should be interested to know how adult unemployment is defined because various measures are used. The figures I have show a 2.3 per cent. reduction in claimant unemployment in my hon. Friend's constituency since 1997. If long-term adult unemployment is defined as being unemployed for more than a year, the reduction has been something like 50 per cent. since the last general election. If it is defined as being unemployed for over two years, as we generally

91WH
think of it, it is down by two thirds. I should therefore be interested to clarify those figures, perhaps outside the debate.
My hon. Friend raises serious issues. We are unfortunately aware of the closures that have taken place in Blyth Valley over the past 12 to 24 months. I know that Blyth Valley council estimates that anything up to 3,000 jobs have been lost in that period. As my hon. Friend said, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has agreed to meet councillor Dave Stephens, leader of Blyth Valley council, and council representatives to discuss employment opportunities in Blyth Valley. That meeting is scheduled for Thursday 16 November. Perhaps it can be a natural progression from our debate today.
I was extremely concerned to hear of the most recent closure announcements at Courtaulds Ladieswear and Valeo Security Systems. I appreciate that a combined loss of 500 jobs was a crippling blow to the area, but it is important to acknowledge the work that was done to try to prevent it. Officials from the Department of Trade and Industry were in contact with both companies, making offers of regional selective assistance to try to prevent the closures. It is unfortunate that they could not be prevented. The companies had made strategic decisions and the offers of regional selective assistance were not accepted. It is important to emphasise the fact that the offers were made.
Blyth Valley council has set up and led a rapid response team to deal with both closures and to help those losing their jobs. The former Courtaulds workers have benefited from that, and I understand that rapid response funding is available to help them gain new employment. The sums involved are exactly in line with the assistance offered in the examples mentioned, and the principle is the same. We might not be able to affect the decisions of the company, but we can make financial assistance available to help people deal with the consequences of closure. We did so in Blyth Valley in relation to the two most recent closures.
The initial figures from the Employment Service are encouraging. They show that 50 former Courtaulds employees have already found work, and it is estimated that another 30 will do so in the next few weeks. The vast majority of those ex-employees are being placed in similar occupations in the area.
Valeo Security Systems is undergoing a gradual rundown of staff, with most of the work force likely to have left by December, although the plant will remain open until the middle of next year. The Employment Service is providing an on-site job shop and aims to highlight the considerable transferable skills of the work force to employers in and outside the area, with special emphasis on north Tyneside, where several recent job announcements have been made.
The two closures are not the only recent ones in and near the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth Valley. The closures of Wilkinson Sword and Cramlington Textiles were severe blows to the area. I share his frustration about Cramlington Textiles, which had a large order book shortly before the closure. In both those cases, many employees who wanted to stay in
92WH
work have found employment elsewhere. That says much about the high quality of their transferable skills, and reflects the level of opportunities that our policies have helped to ensure exists.
The assistance that I mentioned relates to only the most recent closures. In the light of the comments made by my hon. Friend about the north-east, it is important to note that the area as a whole has benefited from substantial Government assistance. I want to highlight some of the help that has been given to Blyth. Before I do, I should mention the point made about the rail link made in an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck. The Minister responsible—it is a matter for the DETR—met a delegation from Northumberland, after which she was positive about reopening the Blyth-Tyne rail line. She awaits the findings of a study that it was agreed would be set up. That is as much light as I can throw on the matter.
For industry, the area is covered by revised assisted areas maps, so it is eligible for regional selective assistance and enterprise grants. Since 1997, the Department of Trade and Industry has made 31 offers of regional selective assistance totalling £6,919,000, and relating to total project costs of £44,507,300. We estimate that those offers will lead to the safeguarding of 94 jobs and the creation of a further 1,345 jobs. I know that my hon. Friend and his colleagues in the north-east will do all they can to contact companies in their constituencies, which do not always understand the assistance available, and encourage them to pursue the funds via my officials in the Government office of the north-east. Perhaps that would be a useful part of the discussion that will take place with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State next week.
Blyth Valley's share of the region's European funding has been significant. In the period 1997–99, the district received £3,530,834 from the European regional development fund and £551,917 in European social funding. My hon. Friend appreciates only too well that the regional development agency, One NorthEast, along with its regional partners, is the lead body that is responsible for the economic development in the region. Its framework for doing so is based on its regional economic strategy. I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that, in July, the Chancellor announced a national £500 million increase to regional development agencies and One NorthEast will receive a portion of that.
One NorthEast has assisted with several funding requirements in my hon. Friend's constituency, such as for the Blyth Quayside infrastructure and environmental works, the Blyth community enterprise and resource centre, the Blyth Quayside offices and Richard Stannard house. Blyth has been in receipt of various single regeneration budget moneys. In SRB round 2, the Renaissance of Blyth received £3.9 million to fund its integrated five-year strategy and in SRB round 4, funding of £1.7 million was provided. In SRB rounds 5 and 6, Blyth was part of a joint bid for £30.6 million, which was submitted by the Northumberland Strategic Partnership. I did not go into so much detail to dilute the passion with which my hon. Friend spoke, but I need to put the record straight. Listening to him, one could have gained the impression that his constituency was being treated differently from others, so I have needed to draw attention to the amount of assistance that it has received so far.

93WH
I shall now refer more generally to the north east. Indeed, my hon. Friend has been a fiery advocate of a north-south divide debate on many occasions. While bad news stories tend to dominate the headlines, it is important to emphasise that the north-east has a vibrant economy. The area has a long history of industrial growth and change and, consequently, several jobs in traditional industries have been lost. However, manufacturing still accounts for 28 per cent. of gross domestic product and for about 20 per cent. of employment. Employment levels in the region are rising, Despite the job losses, some of which we have discussed today, 25,000 more people are in work than was the case one year ago.
I mentioned earlier the level of regional selective assistance offered to businesses in Blyth Valley. It is worth noting that, as a result of the 1999 revision of the assisted areas map, the north-east continues to have the most complete coverage of any part of the United Kingdom, with 97 per cent. of the population living in areas eligible for assistance. My hon. Friend pointed out the two wards that are unfortunately in the 3 per cent. bracket, but we are governed by the European Community and the area would not have met its guidelines if coverage had been extended to those wards.
Over the past four years, regional selective assistance offers in the north-east have assisted projects that will lead to the creation of 17,600 new jobs and safeguard a further 5,500. Since the introduction of enterprise grants in January this year, more than 80 small and medium-sized enterprises have been offered more than £2 million of assistance, creating 600 jobs and safeguarding a further 140.
We cannot be complacent. I am aware that business start-up rates in the north-east, while increasing, are still a long way short of the average for the rest of the United Kingdom. To improve that position, almost half of the resources available from the new objective 2 programme for European structural funds will be devoted to business support for small and medium-sized enterprises. The news across the country is good as is the news in the north-east. However, that is no help to the people who have lost their jobs in the two recent closures, but I must give the broad picture on the Government's behalf. Companies are continuing to invest and to create jobs. I pay tribute to the skills, resilience and determination of the work force. With Government policies and the passion of local representatives, I am sure that new employment opportunities will continue to arise in Blyth Valley and the north-east as a whole.

Primary Health Care Trusts (Eastleigh)
1 pm
Mr. David Chidgey: The Minister will be aware that Eastleigh is at the centre of various conflicting proposals for primary care trust configuration in south Hampshire. I have advised her office in advance of the main thrust of my concerns. I have also have provided to her details of a particular constituent's case that shows, among other things, the importance of getting primary care trust configuration right.
The local health authority recommendations on the preferred option for primary care trusts will reach the Minister later this month. I accept that she cannot pre-judge the approval process, but I should like to draw her attention to some key factors that should be considered. They include the particular characteristics of my constituency in the context of health and social care, the primary care trust options on offer, the application of Government policy guidelines in judging the options—when they reach her—and the specific issues that Eastleigh primary care trusts must address. Additional factors relate to the provision of national health service dentistry and an appalling case of postcode prescription.
I shall deal first with the particular characteristics of Eastleigh in the context of social and health care. Eastleigh has a population of approximately 120,000, which is settled in the old railway town at the centre, in the suburban northern edge, which contains many London commuters, and in scattered villages to the south, such as Hedge End, Botley and West End. These villages also include Hamble, Bursledon and Netley, which are situated in a rather isolated position on the Hamble peninsula and have particular concerns about health care provision.
Eastleigh's character has changed dramatically over the years, through massive speculative development that resulted in the construction of more than 10,000 extra houses since the 1980s. We are now promised—perhaps I should say threatened with—another 5,000 houses in the next decade. In terms of health care provision, Eastleigh has the problem of lying across two health authority boundaries. Nearly half the population live in the southern parishes and are served by the Southampton and South West Hampshire health authority. The rest live in the north and are served by the North and Mid Hampshire health authority. The 5,000 new houses that are to be developed over the next decade are likely to be sited on the boundary between the two health authority areas. It could be argued that that will make matters somewhat worse.
A comparison with other agency arrangements shows that there is an anomaly in our services. Hampshire county council social services division and the Hampshire constabulary division both embrace all of Eastleigh and Romsey. Eastleigh borough council embraces all of the parliamentary constituency up to the boundary of the Southampton city unitary authority. All the major agencies serving Eastleigh, including central and local government representation, are broadly coterminous, with the exception of health care. That is a key factor in determining primary care trust configuration.

95WH
Within Eastleigh's present divided health care provision, there are significant pockets of health care deprivation in what is otherwise a relatively prosperous area. These include Bursledon, out on the Hamble peninsula, and the centre of the old town of Eastleigh. We need to bear in mind that inequality of health care when we consider the primary care trust configurations that are on offer. The Minister will know that the health authority has reduced the number of options to a shortlist of two. I should like to place those options on record. The first is to create four new primary care trusts: New Forest, with a population of 185,000; Southampton city, with a population of 231,000; Eastleigh and Romsey, with a population of 152,000; and mid-Hampshire, with a population 169,000. Option two would create three new primary care trusts: New Forest plus Romsey, with a population of 221,000; Southampton city plus Eastleigh, south, with a population of 277,000; and Eastleigh, north plus mid-Hampshire, with a population of 239,000.
One of the arguments advanced in support of option two, which involves only three trusts, is that it would reduce health care management costs, but, as the Minister knows, those costs are marginal in the overall sense, and in any event management costs do not come out of funds allocated for clinical services. Creating trusts with populations of 250,000 or more hardly squares with a policy of bringing health care decisions closer to the people. How will Government policy and the Department's guidelines be applied to the two options?
As I understand it, the three main functions of primary care trusts are to be: removing inequalities and improving the health of the local community; developing health services through investment to improve quality of care and the integration of services; and commissioning secondary services. A key aim is to reduce the variation in quality of primary care provision.
I want to consider how the primary care trust configuration would work in the context of the national health service plan. Page 1 of the NHS plan summary document clearly states:
The purpose and vision of this NHS Plan is to give the people of Britain a health service fit for the 21st century: a health service designed around the patient.
Page 2 says that the NHS suffers from
over-centralisation and disempowered patients…The NHS has to be redesigned around the needs of the patient.
The Department's circular HSC 1999/167 deals in particular with the criteria that should be used for the assessment of primary care trust proposals. Page 12 states clearly that one should ensure that the proposed organisation has
robust arrangements in place to ensure it can deliver the 3 key functions of Primary Care Trusts.
The criteria will be established through the following questions:
Does the proposed Primary Care Trust show evidence of knowledge and understanding of the health needs of local people, including the pattern of health inequalities, and of how to take effective action for change?…Has an effective relationship been developed with local authority organisations (as well as Social Services)…?
96WH
That is a key point in this particular analysis.
Having examined the Department's circulars and considered Government policy, one does not have to look too deeply to find that option one, which proposes a separate trust for Eastleigh-Romsey, would meet the criteria in full. That option builds on existing interagency relationships within coterminous boundaries and has the support of a wide range of agencies that are keen to work together to develop integrated health and social care provision for the area. Most importantly, it breaks down the boundary of two health authorities that run through the middle of Eastleigh and serve different parts of my constituency. It allows resources to be focused on removing inequalities in health care provision and targets the areas of health and social care deprivation.
I will compare option one with option two as guidance for the Minister, who may not be as familiar with the area as I am. Option two would put half of Eastleigh together with Southampton city; there is no doubt that a trust under that option would be based in Southampton city and would focus on the 250,000 Southampton residents. The 50,000 residents of Eastleigh's southern parishes would be out on a limb, tacked on to the coat tails of a big city. My constituents could be the losers in that relationship, as the priority would be to serve the mass of patients, or customers, that live in the city and are easily accessible for a city-based trust.
I will give an example to show that I am not talking about simple tribal warfare. Under our existing primary care group, in the south of my constituency, which serves south Eastleigh and east Southampton, we have made little progress in establishing a new local health centre in Bursledon to serve the villages. Local health centres for the Southampton city part of that group, however, are well advanced. Clearly, there is real reason for concern about configurations of that sort.
I draw the Minister's attention to a comparison of the unified funding allocations for 2000–01. She will be familiar with the concept of analysing distance from targets of funding; I want to show the effect that that would have on the trust options. Under option one, the parishes in southern Eastleigh down towards the Hamble peninsula would level up under an EastleighRomsey trust, but under option two, southern Eastleigh could level down to match Southampton city. That would not be good news for people in my southern parishes who are looking forward to a significant improvement in the level of available health care. As I said, I realise that the Minister cannot prejudge the situation but I hope that she will bear in mind my analysis, which is based on local knowledge, when considering the primary care trust configuration recommendations.
I turn to two specific issues that come within the framework of PCT options. The first is an appalling case of postcode prescription, about which I have already advised the Minister. It concerns a constituent whom I shall call Steven. I shall quote some letters from his GP that make it clear that we still have a big problem with postcode prescription. The GP said:
I am writing to ask for your support in lodging an appeal with the Local Health Authority in Southampton against their decision not to pay for this patient's Clozaril. This is an extremely effective

97WH
drug for the management of severe Schizophrenia. Without this treatment Steven would, almost certainly, be a long term hospital inpatient.
Steven has multiple disabilities including Paraplegia, severe Schizophrenia. and has Insulin Dependent Diabetes. He is also an Amputee, having lost a leg in an accident… He is also an Epileptic…
I recently managed to obtain a written guarantee from the Southampton South West Hampshire Health Authority under the continuing and Care and Community programme that Steven was eligible as a resident of their Health Authority Area for all the Services that are available to any other citizen of this country under the NHS free of charge.
It seems to me to be grossly unfair that this most unfortunate individual should be victimised by the National Health Service in this way.
It means that his mother
—who manages his trust—
has to pay £4,500 every year for the Clozaril, in addition to paying for the team of nurses, for his 24 hour round the clock care at their home.
In a further letter, the doctor confirmed that
The decision to force Steven to pay for his medication was apparently made by…a Consultant Psychiatrist at the Royal South Hants Hospital in Southampton. The reason given for this decision was that Steven's psychiatric care is supervised…at the Milbury Unit at the Royal Hampshire County Hospital in Winchester. Steven lives in Hedge End
—in my constituency—
which is in the catchment area of the South Hants Hospital…
It is interesting that the Southampton and South West Hampshire Health Authority agree with my contention that Steven is being discriminated against because he has the wrong post code.
The Manager in Primary Care at the Health Authority has confirmed in writing that Steven is entitled to all the facilities, services and medication available under the National Health Service. Unfortunately. the Health Authority no longer has any power to intervene in decisions made by individual Trusts.
That is the important point to consider in deciding new boundaries and management processes for the provision of health care.
Finally, I turn to the problem with dentistry in connection with the primary health care trust. As the Minister will know, under the NHS plan, the Government have committed themselves to making high-quality NHS dentistry available to all who want it by September 2001. The plan appears to rely on health authorities as the main drivers of NHS dentists working as part of primary care multi-disciplinary teams, but not within the PCTs, which I find strange. In the context of the options available to Eastleigh, a proposal is being developed to provide an NHS dental access centre in Southampton to serve my constituents in Hedge End, West End and Botley. That surely prejudges the primary care configuration options, within the trust and elsewhere. It is also woefully inadequate as a response to the Government's aim of making access to NHS dentistry available to all who want it. I would like the Minister to look at that in the round when assessing primary care trust recommendations.
I have tried to set out my concerns about the primary care trust configuration as it affects my constituency and I have highlighted an appalling case of postcode prescription. I have also shown that the proposals for NHS dentistry are inadequate. I look forward to hearing the Minister's response; if there is enough time, I may intervene.
1.15pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Gisela Stuart): It is a pleasure to be back in Westminster Hall after the summer recess; I had forgotten the joys of Adjournment debates. I congratulate the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) on raising the issue of primary health care trusts. Before I respond generally, I shall deal with two specific points that he raised.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me prior notice of the case involving his constituent, Steven. My information is that it is not a case of postcode prescribing, but rather that the patient was originally a private patient at the practice, and subsequently changed to the NHS. It was then a question of the health authority assessing his case. I am informed that, after consideration by the health authority two weeks ago, it was agreed that he would be prescribed the drugs on the NHS. Steven is currently in hospital and on the drug. When he is discharged, he will continue to be prescribed Clozaril by the NHS for as long as it is clinically appropriate. I hope that that is good news.
Mr. Chidgey: It is.
Ms Stuart: I am glad to have cleared that up.
It is important to put on record the fact that NHS dentistry will remain the responsibility of health authorities. It is no part of PCTs. We recognise—as did my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) when he was Secretary of State—that considerable improvements are necessary in this sector. On a national basis, we have funded several projects. One is an £18 million commitment scheme, which rewards dentists for their greater commitment to the NHS. From 2001–02, £35 million will be available to modernise NHS dental practices. Additionally, in the current year, £4 million will go to help dental practitioners give treatment to patients. So far, the Southampton and South West Hampshire health authority has received £639,000 worth of investing-in-dentistry grants, which are intended to improve dental facilities. That has generated an extra 46,000 registrations.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be delighted that his area was chosen for one of the personal dental service pilot schemes, which bring together community and salaried dental services. By September 2001, we will ensure on a national basis that, wherever they live, people will be given information on obtaining NHS dentistry. There is still some way to go, but we have provided considerable investment.
The main subject of the debate is proposals on PCT configuration in the constituency of the hon. Member for Eastleigh and across Southampton and south-west Hampshire. I want to consider the proposals in the context of the Government's overall view of the role of primary care.
When we published the NHS plan last July, few of us had any doubt about what was at stake. Fifty years after the NHS was founded, it was under attack from many sides. Its delivery was under attack from patients—and from those within the NHS—who had seen the effects of years of under-investment, too few staff, outdated equipment and crumbling buildings.

99WH
Underfunding has hampered the NHS, but so has the way in which the NHS operates—the way it is organised to make people wait; the barriers that prevent efficient use of staff; and the chasm that opens up between NHS and social care. The NHS needed money, but it also needed change. That is what the NHS plan is all about—investment and reform, money and modernisation. The money came at a price—the need to change the way in which the NHS operates.
The result was a plan that set out how the NHS needed to change if it was to make the best use of the new investment. More convenient access to primary care was necessary with more consultations, more tests, more diagnosis and more treatment in primary care settings. Proper priority needed to be given to the major killer diseases like cancer and coronary heart disease. There was a need to end postcode rationing for drugs and to secure better access to hi-tech equipment—the National Institute for Clinical Excellence has played a significant role in that. However, that change can come about only with the full involvement of everyone in primary care.
We have already allocated £54.5 million to primary care groups and trusts this year, to kick-start the expansion of primary care services. Further investment will follow. It is important that those funds are used strategically to develop new services and improve access to primary care. However, although primary care will receive ear-marked funds, those are not the only funds that will affect how services are delivered. More than £20 billion has been devolved to primary care groups and trusts to commission services. That money must be used responsibly.
The creation of primary care groups was a vital step in the biggest devolution of power and decision making ever seen in the NHS. It brought together doctors, nurses, community nurses, health visitors and local people, and put them in the driving seat when deciding how local patients are looked after and treated. We have set up a central programme of support and development to help manage the transition because, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, the cultures of corporation and of management that have developed over the past 50 years were variable.
For starters—it is close to my heart because I have some responsibility for the use of IT—we have provided £50 million to help PCGs improve their IT infrastructure and data management, so that all the partners in the system can communicate effectively. The national primary care development team was set up to ensure that all PCGs have access to expert advice and support; we did not expect each group to reinvent the wheel but to learn from good practice. We have issued guidance to ensure that all PCGs have organisational development plans in place that are relevant to their needs. That has already made a real difference to patients. I shall give some examples from the hon. Gentleman's constituency.
Money allocated to the Eastleigh, North and the Southampton, East primary care trusts has gone towards training nurses and providing additional hours for triage services in GP practices; extending chiropody and podiatry services to reduce waiting times; and improving access to GPs and primary care professionals
100WH
by ensuring that all practices are open 12 hours a day, because access is important. We have also developed a locality care centre to act as a one-stop centre for primary care services, a minor injuries unit and a patient information centre.
Those examples of good practice have been achieved by ensuring better working across boundaries and the development of robust links between primary and secondary care. That, and the more effective direction of resources, has meant improved services for patients, but we have taken it further.
The development of primary care groups into primary care trusts provides an unparalleled opportunity. It will allow local communities to determine the pace of change that is right for them. The system will allow local health professionals to control budgets, which will enable them to shape hospital and community services for patients in their area, and invest in improving the primary and community services provided by doctors, nurses and other local professionals. We must be careful not to talk only of doctors and nurses; we must not forget the important role of others in the chain of care. I am forcefully reminded that 60 per cent. of those working for the NHS are not doctors or nurses.
We want to develop more integrated services between general practice, community services and social services, and give patients better access to healthcare, by identifying which services most need developing. Again, the hon. Gentleman referred to historic inequalities, which must be identified; and some groups will need support to develop. Above all, decision-making must be placed closer to patients, and it must be shaped by the professionals who most often meet patients' needs.
Nationally, 40 PCTs are currently up and running and more than 130 PCGs have expressed an interest in becoming PCTs from 1 April 2001. That is a clear sign that primary care professionals recognise the benefits that becoming a PCT presents to them and to the development of the health economy. In reality, they realise that no other body has the same range of flexibility and opportunities to improve services, and we acknowledge the huge agenda they face.
Organisations such as the national patient access team and the national primary care development team have been set up to support them. They are working closely with PCGs and PCTs to encourage the appropriate management of demand and to enable primary care to play a full role in cutting waiting times. We have also developed a toolkit specifically designed for PCTs to ascertain how well they are doing with referrals, admission rates and lengths of stay and to determine whether that is good, bad or indifferent. Often, people in the health service had no means of comparing themselves with similar providers. Those tools will allow PCTs to measure their performance and compare it with that of others. The hidden message behind that is that, if they are not doing as well as others, they will be able to determine what they need to do to improve their standards.
With that level of support and the additional freedom and flexibility, PCTs will be the key vehicles to drive through our modernisation agenda. In general, PCTs of between 100,000 and 300,000 will be assumed to be of acceptable size. Those that are larger or smaller will

101WH
need closer scrutiny. However, I must stress that that scrutiny will apply equally to all PCTs, regardless of size.
All PCTs must meet the same four basic criteria. The first involves a vision. They must be able to demonstrate the need to be a PCT and what will be achieved as a result of that. The second relates to support. They must show that the application has broad local support from all the stakeholders. Thirdly, they will need to show competency in clinical leadership, management capacity, technical systems and skills to manage large budgets and provide community services. The fourth concerns the fact that they must ensure that there will be no detrimental impact on other services or service providers within that health system.
PCTs must be able to balance local knowledge against the capacity to manage the provision of services and the management of resources necessary for delivery. We believe that that will best be achieved by responsive PCTs working effectively together to ensure a cohesive approach to health care across a locality, sharing management resources and requiring co-operation from other local providers to obtain the services required. The starting point for determining a PCT boundary should be the need to ensure a coherent and cogent focus on meeting the needs of all the people living in that community.
We have made it clear that PCTs should seek the best possible coterminosity with other bodies. In fact, while coterminosity is not a requirement to attain PCT status, we continue to encourage the move towards coterminosity between local authorities and all other administrative boundaries. It will be imperative for a PCT to forge effective links with county, district and borough councils in order to perform its health improvement functions.
Coterminosity with social services authorities may also be helpful in enabling the pooling of budgets, which will bring service delivery benefits to all those in the group. Although coterminous boundaries will certainly assist PCTs that wish to enter into pooled budget, lead commissioner or integrated provider arrangements with
102WH
local authorities, they are not the only determinant of effective partnership working and should not halt progress in this vital area.
That leads me to events in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. As he said, there is currently one PCT in the area of the Southampton and South West Hampshire health authority—the Southampton, East PCT. It covers the east of the city of Southampton and the southern parishes of Eastleigh borough, which is within the area represented by the hon. Gentleman. It has been operational since April this year. That PCT and the Southampton, Central PCG have recently been the subject of a consultation on a proposal to come together to form a city-based PCT from April 2001.
The consultation exercise is a process designed to allow any interested individuals, groups or stakeholders to put forward their views on the proposals set out by local stakeholders. I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has made some detailed proposals, which I read again this morning. The Southampton and South West Hampshire health authority will take into account the representations made and consider them carefully before making any decision. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have already taken the opportunity to take wider soundings. He made it clear in his letter that he was expressing not only his views, but those of a number of the stakeholders to whom he had spoken.
The proposals are now with the health authority and will be considered at its board meeting on Wednesday 15 November. At the meeting, the authority will also discuss wider plans for the development of PCTs in the remainder of the health authority area, including part of the hon. Gentleman's constituency.
The health authority's recommendations will then be received by the south east regional office of the NHS executive before being passed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for a final decision. Until then, we must remain impartial and must not be seen to be influencing any decision. We must not, and will not, prejudge the outcome of any local consultation.
I am sure that we all share a common desire to ensure that the right services are available to all patients at the right time and in the right place.

Houses in Multiple Occupation
1.30 pm
Ms Julia Drown: I am delighted to have secured this debate on an issue that affects not only my constituents, but thousands of particularly vulnerable people throughout the country. I say "vulnerable" because in Swindon, for example, levels of homelessness, especially among the young, single and low-income groups, have placed great demand on the houses in the multiple occupation sector. Those people are often not in the strongest position to insist on decent standards of accommodation, which should be available to them.
All hon. Members will have witnessed the impact that poor quality housing can have on the everyday lives of our constituents. Inadequate housing is not only a misery in itself, but has an impact on people's physical and mental well-being and on children's education and ability to participate and thrive in society.
The Government rightly want to ensure that there is quality housing for everyone. Their social exclusion unit has pointed out that to achieve that, action must be taken to improve the poor standard of many houses in multiple occupation, which I shall call HMOs. Organisations such as Shelter, the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health, the National Union of Students and the national HMO network have been doing important work. Those organisations, as well as my local borough council, have asked me to push for legislation.
I hope that I am pushing at an open door, because the housing Green Paper, "Quality and Choice: a decent home for all", states that the Government are committed to introducing a mandatory licensing scheme for HMOs as soon as parliamentary time allows. I asked for the debate to press for that legislation to be implemented as soon as possible—preferably, it should be included in the forthcoming Queen's Speech—because further delay means that my constituents are not receiving the protection that they should have.
The lack of better controls means that bad owners of homes are allowed to get away with bad practice, which does not support the good owners in our constituencies who are providing decent accommodation.
In Swindon, we have 550 known HMOs in the borough, many of which do not meet the basic minimum standards in terms of fire safety, overcrowding and provision of amenities. Many are poorly managed, which means that the council has to take regular action to try to maintain safe conditions for tenants. Nationally, the latest figures, from the 1996 English house conditions survey, show that 195,000 households live in HMOs. If we extend the traditional interpretation of bedsits to include shared houses, converted flats, households with lodgers and purpose-built HMOs, that figure leaps to 1.4 million households.
Swindon has only a small private rented sector, on which there is great demand. Because demand well exceeds supply, it is a seller's market. Unfortunately, there is therefore little incentive for poor owners to manage their property to reasonable standards. Tenants are prepared to rent small, overcrowded and often unsafe property because it is all that they can afford.
104WH
Consequently, many are unwilling to complain about the sub-standard conditions of their property, which often means that nothing is done to improve the situation.
Shockingly, Swindon has less of a problem than do many other towns and cities with even greater sections of the population in sub-standard HMOs. That emphasises the great need for nationwide action.
Any civilised society wants decent housing standards. All accommodation that is let, or is available for letting, should be free from unacceptable hazards, in a reasonable state of repair, and in an overall condition that will not adversely affect the health and safety of residents, visitors, neighbours or passers-by. A poor HMO does not affect only its residents.
At a surgery, a constituent told me of her fears of losing her property because the neighbouring property was an HMO that was not up to fire standards. She saw it as a fire risk. She was also concerned to discover that the rubbish was not being dealt with properly, which might pose a health risk to her. Therefore, taking action on HMOs also serves the wider community.
I do not want to give the impression that all HMOs are bad. The HMO sector contains some good examples of well designed, well equipped and well managed housing. There are some excellent owners and they are to be commended, but this debate focuses on problems such as overcrowding, inadequate fire precautions, inadequate shared facilities, poor maintenance, bad management and harassment.
As recently as last Friday, I visited an HMO in my constituency and I am disappointed to say that the standards of disrepair that I have described were in evidence. The house had six tenants but was suitable for fewer. The stair carpet—shreds of a carpet would be a better description—was dangerously ripped, and there was no stair lighting. The house had an illegal loft conversion, and two internal doors had broken panes of glass with jagged edges, on which people could injure themselves. The owner must be getting almost £300 a week from the property, but it had only one smoke alarm—even that had no battery—and there was no fire blanket in the kitchen. The house was a disgrace, and an unpleasant reminder of the need for legislation to deal with this problem. The council is aware of the property, and has served legal notices on the owner to take corrective action, but that was two months ago. Each day that passes is another day on which the tenants face unnecessary risks.
Sometimes the tenants themselves are at least partially responsible for such problems, but that is no excuse for the owner's failure to take corrective action. Ultimately, if a tenant is making a property hazardous, he or she must be evicted, so that the lives and health of other tenants are not put at risk. In Swindon as well as nationally, bad owners of HMOs are generally unwilling to improve properties on their own initiative or at the suggestion of tenants. Therefore, the first step to improving such properties is their identification by councils. Helpful suggestions from councils achieve results on only a few occasions. Councils use existing statutory powers to compel bad owners to improve standards but, as the example that I mentioned has shown, that does not produce a quick response.

105WH
Cases where financial assistance is offered in the form of a grant provide the only exceptions to the standard response from many bad owners. However, it is very unusual for a landlord to approach a council for advice on standards. The most unscrupulous owners prefer to remain anonymous, in the hope that their properties will remain undiscovered. Under current legislation, owners are not required to seek prior approval. They know that, if they are discovered, the worst that can happen is to be asked to carry out improvements. Ultimately, that breeds a culture of secrecy among many owners, and creates a barrier to their necessary education and involvement in improving the HMO sector.
In addition to the many HMOs that remain undetected, there is the huge problem of poor management and maintenance in properties that have previously been inspected and approved. According to Swindon borough council, once such premises are rendered acceptable, many owners lose interest and do not feel obliged to maintain standards. When subsequent inspections are made, it is therefore common to find defective fire safety equipment, amenities in disrepair, and other unsatisfactory conditions resulting from lack of maintenance by the owner. More often than not, a council's staff resources do not allow a proactive re-inspection programme.
Councils can establish registration schemes, and I have urged Swindon borough council to consider doing so. It is looking into the matter but, given the current regulations, such a scheme would not be as straightforward or simple to operate as a streamlined national system. Existing planning controls are weak, particularly in relation to small HMOs with fewer than six occupants. Such HMOs, which do not require planning consent, proliferate in Swindon.
Swindon borough council has considerable experience in tackling poor housing conditions, but it finds the current controls cumbersome and often ineffective in achieving the lasting improvements to HMOs that we want. A national system would allow a list to be drawn up of people who were judged to be unsuitable to own HMOs.
The early introduction of a mandatory licensing system would impose an absolute and unambiguous duty on all owners to declare the HMOs under their control. The message would be clear—that failure to do so would leave them liable to prosecution. Furthermore, owners would be aware that HMOs would not be licensed until they met minimum standards based on clear Government guidelines, and that licences could be withdrawn if the standard requirements were not maintained. Perhaps most important, tenants' awareness of the standards to be expected would be raised and they would have greater confidence to come forward and complain if standards were not maintained.
On the detail of the legislation, the same concerns and arguments arise time and again. I emphasise that I am not pressing for massive new regulation; I want better and simpler regulation. For example, a facility to specify the maximum number of occupants on a licence for any particular property would greatly simplify the current statutory powers. A comprehensive licensing scheme would make the controls in the Housing Act 1996
106WH
redundant, so the Government could repeal all those regulations. Swindon borough council would welcome that.
Safety is of first importance, and most owners recognise their responsibility and the regulatory role of Government and councils. Fire safety is the key. The Labour Government treats fire safety very seriously and the social exclusion unit has done excellent work as part of its neighbourhood renewal strategy. The risk of death from fire in HMOs varies considerably, as do standards of repair. However, research has shown that in several types of HMOs, the risk is considerably higher than in comparable single-occupancy dwellings. Occupants of houses comprising bedsits are about six times more likely to die as a result of fire than are adults in an ordinary house.
I spoke yesterday to my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson), who told me that one of her constituents had died in a fire in an HMO because there was no adequate escape route from the fire. A window was jammed and there was no extinguisher, so the house was obviously unsafe. The owner was taken to court and fined at a level that did not reflect the consequences of the action. That decision did not send a strong signal to other HMO owners that it is unacceptable to place people's lives at risk in that way, and it shows again how important it is that further action is taken. The owner of that HMO owned properties throughout the country, which emphasises the need for a national scheme, including a list of owners who are unsuitable to run HMOs.
Better practice, particularly in fire safety, is important. I am a keen advocate of sprinklers in domestic properties. A demonstration house at West Swindon fire station shows very effectively how sprinklers can save lives and minimise the risk to property. I invite the Minister to come and see that for himself. Sprinklers in HMOs could make a big impact on fire safety, and the National Fire Sprinkler Network has examined that. It has called for sprinkler systems to be included in the guidelines of any future legislation. In new build homes, the cost of installing sprinklers is minimal and it is even becoming more economical to install sprinklers in existing properties. With sensible insurance policies, they could provide a quick payback to owners, particularly owners of HMOs. Immediate installation of sprinklers in all HMOs is not practical, but I hope that owners will be encouraged to install them because of our experience of fires in HMOs.
The organisations with an interest in this area have widely welcomed the Government's proposals in the Green Paper. We need action now. Legislation must include a broad definition of HMOs to encompass not only larger HMOs in Swindon, but smaller HMOs, which often place people most at risk.
I do not want a new scheme to lead irresponsible owners to seek to convert their property to one of the exempt categories, thus creating a two-tier sector of licensed and unlicensed properties, the latter being the death traps that we want to see the back of. Wholesale reform is needed, with existing controls repealed and a new, simplified scheme in their place. That would be better than modifying current legislation. We want a simple scheme that helps owners and councils to protect the thousands of people who currently live in squalid

107WH
and dangerous conditions in HMOs. When do we want it? We want it now. I look forward to the Minister's reply.
1.44 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Chris Mullin): My hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown) raised an important matter and made her case clearly and powerfully. I share her concern about the poor standards of physical condition and management that can be found in houses in multiple occupation. As she said, other areas of the country, including Sunderland, which I represent, have the same problems as Swindon, but on a greater scale. I am very much alive to the difficulties. Whole areas of Sunderland have been dragged down because of the grip of absentee landlords on a street. My hon. Friend is pushing at an open door.
The Government remain committed to introducing a licensing system for houses in multiple occupation—and now I must use a phrase that my hon. Friend will have heard before—as soon as parliamentary time allows. She will appreciate that my Department must bid for parliamentary time against the Government's other priorities. Therefore, it will be necessary to wait for the Queen's Speech. If my hon. Friend is disappointed, there are things that can be done in the interim, as she acknowledged. Swindon does not yet have a registration scheme, and while such a scheme would not solve all the problems that she outlined, it would make a difference. She is right to encourage taking that route as an interim measure.
Few people, I think, would disagree that current provisions for houses in multiple occupation, which have been amended piecemeal over five decades, are unsatisfactory and not always easy to understand. Court judgments have also cast doubt over which properties fall under the current definition of houses in multiple occupation. Understandably, that uncertainty has led to some local housing authorities expressing reluctance to use their existing powers. That is why we are determined to replace existing powers in relation to houses in multiple occupation with a regime that is simpler to implement and which provides a much more effective and accessible framework for intervention. That will provide protection where it is most needed and benefit tenants and responsible landlords alike.
I am sure that hon. Members will appreciate that a number of specific management problems are associated with houses in multiple occupation, which, combined with the higher risks to tenants' health and safety, have made the use of existing powers difficult. Those include a lack of clear management responsibility, evasive or absentee landlords, a lack of funds, irresponsible as well as vulnerable tenants and problems caused by poor management for immediate neighbours. My hon. Friend referred to all those issues.
Where houses in multiple occupation are subject to licensing, a single individual, resident in the United Kingdom, will be nominated as a fully responsible representative or duty-holder for each property. That will enable local authorities to identify who is
108WH
responsible for meeting the requirements and conditions imposed under licensing. The licensing regime will also address the need for tenants to co-operate with landlords by respecting fire safety measures and allowing access for inspections. That approach will aid local housing authorities in identifying who is responsible for the health and safety of tenants, but will also encourage and support well-intentioned landlords in meeting their obligations and duties. We are determined to improve management practice in the sector of houses in multiple occupation. There is scope to strengthen the existing management regulations and we intend to do that without waiting for primary legislation.
Hon. Members will know that it had been our intention to consult separately on physical standards for houses in multiple occupation. It is very helpful in this respect that, in parallel with the reforms, we have been reviewing the housing fitness standard for all dwellings. The key to those changes is the recent development of a new housing health and safety rating system, which allows a wide variety of hazards to occupants' health and safety to be identified and quantified.
The rating system will, in time, replace the existing relatively narrow pass or fail standard and will apply to any unit of residential accommodation and to all landlords. It will reflect more accurately tenants' perceptions of the condition of their accommodation and the problems that threaten their health and safety. It will also permit a more proportionate enforcement response, which will enable responsible landlords to raise their game on the foundation of good regulation.
The rating system is no less relevant to houses in multiple occupation than it is to single-occupancy housing. As a result, it will form an integral part of our licensing system as the principal tool in assessing the physical condition of houses. All assessment and enforcement of physical standards in houses in multiple occupation will eventually be done using the housing health and safety rating system, with further risk-based guidance on fire, overcrowding and amenity standards.
Fire safety is a particular area of concern, and risk of death is significantly higher in HMOs than in single occupancy dwellings. Current legislation and guidance includes substantial guidance on fire safety measures for HMOs. In addition, the Housing (Fire Safety in Houses in Multiple Occupation) Order 1997 has widened local authority powers in respect of higher risk HMOs. Under this order, local authorities have a statutory duty, in consultation with the local fire authority, to ensure that fire safety measures are adequate in all HMOs of three storeys or above. The order has been phased in over the past three years and came into effect fully on 29 February this year.
For new or converted HMOs, building regulations have clear requirements regarding fire safety. Furthermore the Housing (Management of Houses in Multiple Occupation) Regulations 1990, impose a duty on the manager of an HMO to maintain all equipment provided by way of fire precautions. My colleagues in the Home Office are also proposing to update fire safety legislation. One of the proposals under consideration is to develop a general duty of fire safety care, which would apply to all multi-occupied dwellings.

109WH
I am aware of the growing body of support for the provision of residential sprinklers in houses in multiple occupation. My hon. Friend mentioned the experiment in Swindon. Version one of the rating system guidance includes sprinklers as an option for multi-occupancy buildings. That does not mean that they would be mandatory for HMOs, but it does mean that where the risk is justified and where occupants are particularly vulnerable, sprinklers may well be appropriate. In view of the substantial cost and the need to protect the supply of cheap HMO accommodation, the case for sprinkler installation must be based on a proper risk assessment.
The development of the rating system means that we will be able greatly to simplify enforcement procedures by abolishing the current, separate standards of fitness for HMOs and provide housing authorities with a single set of powers and duties in respect of house condition. That will benefit tenants, local authorities and responsible landlords by promoting greater consistency. We think that there is much merit in legislating for the rating system at the same time as licensing. In practical terms, this will avoid two changes in quick succession.
Under our licensing proposals, local authorities will have a duty to licence higher-risk HMO premises such as bed-sits, hostels and larger shared houses. We also envisage a discretionary power for local authorities to extend licensing to smaller shared houses where that is justified by local circumstances, such as high concentrations of student lettings found in certain neighbourhoods in university towns. Land-use planning issues will continue to be treated separately from licensing, although before issuing a licence, authorities should consider, on a case-by-case basis, whether planning consent is also required for a change of use. At present local authorities are not required to reduce or cap existing concentrations of a particular form of tenure, whether owner-occupation or social or private
110WH
renting. Planning legislation does not define 'multiple occupation' or HMO as such, but does rely on both the concept of a 'single household' and 'family' in making distinctions for land-use purposes. We are not proposing to amend planning legislation.
We also propose to introduce a broader definition of HMO based on the relationship of those living together rather than their mode of living. That will make the issue of whether a property is an HMO less critical and, in any case, the rating system will be relevant whether or not the property falls within the new definition.
We are determined to make bad landlords improve their performance or get out of the sector. The health and safety of tenants is paramount. However, we must ensure that the impact of regulation and legislation does not impose unreasonable burdens on responsible landlords, or we risk adversely affecting the supply of this valuable source of accommodation.
While I recognise the concern for speedy legislation, I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that we must do all we can to modernise and rationalise the confusing mass of controls, and ensure that future legislation is an improvement on existing statutes. I hope that hon. Members appreciate that the framework I have outlined today will strengthen local authorities' powers and duties to intervene when the quality of HMO accommodation or management causes anxiety. As I said earlier, in the interim there is nothing to stop local authorities setting up their own licensing system; indeed, we encourage it. That will leave them in a much better position to take up future powers in respect of HMOs. Hon. Members may be assured that HMO licensing remains a priority, whether or not time is found for it in the Queen's Speech.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at five minutes to Two o'clock.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Ministerial Engagements
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many visits he has made to(a) the cinema and (b) the theatre in an official capacity since May 1997. [136242]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  Since May 1997 I have attended 12 cinematic and 25 theatrical performances in an official capacity. In addition I have also attended performances at various festivals over this period and have attended both the cinema and theatre on numerous other occasions in a personal capacity.

  Culture Online
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, pursuant to his answer of 1 November 2000,Official Report, column 476W, what estimates he has made of the cost to public funds of establishing the new service provisionally entitled Culture Online. [137221]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  My Department is in the process of commissioning a full economic appraisal of this proposal in order to establish the likely cost to public funds and the potential for income generation.

  Theatre Closures (London)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations he has received about the proposed closure of Westminster Theatre and the Mermaid Theatre; what assessment he has made of planning arrangements governing the future listing of such buildings; and if he will make a statement. [137008]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  I have received two representations asking me to consider listing the Westminster Theatre and none about the Mermaid. The Westminster Theatre has been assessed for listing and found not to meet the strict criteria; a certificate of immunity against listing, valid for five years, was issued in June 1997. The Mermaid Theatre will be considered should I receive such a request.

  Civil Servants (Relocation)
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport which relocation companies hold contracts with his Department for the relocation of civil servants; when the contracts were last renewed; where the contracts were advertised; and what the length and value of each contract is. [137189]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  My Department has no regionally based offices so has had no need of such contracts.

  Fitness Facilities
  Mr. Alan Keen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans his Department has to work with(a) private health and fitness clubs and (b) public sports and leisure facilities to provide health benefits to all the population. [137045]

  Kate Hoey
  The Government's Sports Strategy "A Sporting Future for All" is based on creating opportunities to participate in sport. Wide participation, which requires easy access to various types of sports and fitness facilities and to sports clubs, will help to improve levels of fitness and lead to long-term improvements. The strategy implementation subgroup charged with this task, whose members include representatives from local authority sport and the private health and fitness sector, is on course to report back to Ministers at the end of the year.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) of 9 March 2000,Official Report, columns 806-07W, what the average cost per case is for the administration of Housing Benefit in each local authority in England. [136166]

  Angela Eagle
  The measure of the average cost to a local authority of administering a Housing Benefit case is based on a comparison of the amount the authority reports it spends on benefit administration and the reported size of its case load. The figures have been calculated using this comparison and have been placed in the Library.

  Mortgage Benefit Scheme
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what recent representations he has received on the introduction of a mortgage benefit scheme. [136814]

  Angela Eagle
  In April we published our Housing Green Paper, "Quality and Choice: A decent home for all" setting out our vision and strategy for the provision of housing in the future. It is the most comprehensive review of housing policy for 23 years and is all about raising standards, improving performance, extending choice and increasing accessibility and accountability. I am aware that some of the responses to the Housing Green Paper support the introduction of a mortgage benefit scheme.

  EU Employment Directive
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the Inter-ministerial Group on Ageing and Older People last met to discuss the EU directive on discrimination in employment. [137319]

  Mr. Rooker
  The EU directive is not specific to older people. It was therefore discussed by Ministers across Government throughout the year before it was signed in October.

  Elderly People
  Mr. Goggins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was spent on social security for the elderly as
  219W
  a proportion of gross domestic product in 1996–97; what he estimates it will be in 2001–02; and what amount this would be if basic state pension had been linked to earnings, excluding the cost of free television licences for the over-75s, Winter Fuel Payments and the Minimum Income Guarantee, but including Income Support. [137903]

  Mr. Rooker
  In 1996–97, Social Security benefit expenditure on elderly people accounted for 5.32 per cent. of GDP. The forecasts underlying the most recently published expenditure plans1 show that in 2001–02 the corresponding figure will be 5.33 per cent. of GDP. The corresponding figure for 2001–02 would have been 5.23 per cent. if basic state pension had been linked to earnings, excluding the cost of free TV licences for the over-75s, Winter Fuel Payments and the Minimum Income Guarantee, but including Income Support.
  1 Spending Review 2000 plans.

WALES

  Rail Improvements
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met the chairmen of rail companies

  Capital expenditure stated at time of investment decision

  £ million

  Region

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  France

  61.100

  55.550

  25.500

  4.567

  0.050

  16.900

  14.190

  19.090

  24.064

  1.200

  Germany

  9.212

  39.482

  8.434

  13.682

  31.350

  6.600

  0.975

  25.868

  63.354

  33.880

  Italy

  0.500

  58.070

  11.425

  2.835

  0

  5.770

  21.849

  17.290

  17.840

  3.810

  Japan

  39.469

  230.475

  9.150

  87.215

  214.590

  34.015

  96.076

  145.558

  196.598

  24.031

  Korea

  0

  0

  0.600

  0

  0

  17.102

  1700.000

  0

  0.400

  0

  North America

  136.543

  589.700

  384.549

  356.527

  506.829

  520.673

  880.289

  134.223

  144.787

  437.930

  Other European

  15.346

  30.820

  32.474

  67.086

  19.671

  23.158

  17.779

  78.606

  87.952

  7.346

  Rest of World

  24.300

  17.950

  318.087

  43.000

  2.450

  296.092

  0.989

  28.147

  5.901

  4.067

  Business Numbers
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many businesses(a) operate and (b) operated in 1995 in Wales. [136272]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  In 1999 there were 75,230 businesses in Wales registered for VAT. The comparable figure for 1995 is 77,200. These figures do not include companies with an annual turnover of less than £50,000 or those in VAT-exempt sectors.

  Small and Medium-sized Businesses
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the First Secretary on the level of regulations on small businesses. [136478]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I have regular discussions with the First Secretary about a range of matters, including the concerns of small businesses.

  Both the Government and the National Assembly are committed to minimising regulatory burdens on business.

  Skills Shortages (Alyn and Deeside)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultation he has had with the First Secretary concerning skills shortages in Alyn and
  220W
  operating within Wales to discuss improvements to Welsh railway lines; and what was the outcome of these meetings. [135241]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Oversight of the railway industry is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister.

  I have met representatives of rail companies on several occasions to discuss a range of issues. I also maintain close contact with the National Assembly for Wales, which has a key role to play in encouraging the development of integrated transport networks. I know that Sue Essex, the Assembly's Secretary for Planning, Environment and Transport, has had numerous meetings with the train operating companies and has issued guidance to those bidding for the Wales and Borders franchise, setting out the Assembly's aspirations for rail services in Wales.

  Foreign Investment
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the origins of foreign investment in Wales in each of the last 10 years. [135228]

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

  Deeside, with particular reference to small and medium-sized enterprises; and if he will make a statement. [137012]

  Mr. Hanson
  My right hon. Friend and I have regular discussions with the First Secretary about a range of matters, including the skills requirements of businesses in particular localities.

  Training and Enterprise Councils (TECs) are currently responsible for assessing the skill needs of employers in their areas—including small and medium-sized enterprises, and for working with local authorities and others to promote local action to meet those needs. I understand that the National Assembly is supporting this process through commissioning research under the Future Skills Wales study, which provides information on skill needs at TEC area and local authority level. From April 2001, the responsibility for analysing and addressing local skill needs will fall to regional offices of the Council for Education and Training in Wales.

  Engineering Industry
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what consultations he has had with the First Secretary concerning the provision of skilled persons in the engineering industries; and if he will make a statement; [137018]
  221W
  (2) what consultations he has had with the First Secretary concerning policies related to the employment of skilled persons to fill vacancies in the engineering industry; and if he will make a statement. [137015]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I have regular discussions with the First Secretary about a range of matters including the skill requirements of particular industries.

  I understand that the National Assembly liaises closely with the Engineering and Marine Training Authority (EMTA) and other national training organisations on the skill needs of the engineering industry and will take account of their views in drawing up an employment action plan as part of the National Economic Development Strategy.

  Local Authority Housing
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the First Secretary concerning the number of houses built by local authorities in Wales since 1990; and if he will make a statement. [137021]

  Mr. Hanson
  My right hon. Friend and I have regular discussions with the First Secretary about a range of matters, including housing provision.

  I understand that local authorities reported 1,859 homes completed between January 1990 and December 1999.

  Aerospace Industry (Alyn and Deeside)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the First Secretary concerning the requirement for skilled persons in Alyn and Deeside, with particular reference to the aerospace industry; and if he will make a statement. [137014]

  Mr. Hanson
  My right hon. Friend and I have regular discussions with the First Secretary about a range of matters, including the skill requirements of particular industries.

  I understand that the National Assembly, the Welsh Development Agency and the Training and Enterprise Councils have been working with the aerospace sector to help overcome recruitment and training difficulties. For example, the Assembly has part-funded a collaborative project with the industry to meet training needs arising out of new British Civil Aviation Authority requirements.

  Organic Farming
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what funds organic farming in Wales will receive from EU sources in each of the next three years. [137098]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  That is a matter for the National Assembly for Wales.

DEFENCE

  Precision-guided Bombing Capability
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the training of RAF aircrews in laser-guided bombing performance; and what plans he has for improving it. [134403]
  222W
  Mr. Spellar
  As we have acknowledged in the publication 'Kosovo—Lessons from the Crisis', the RAF already has a well-practised low-level all-weather attack capability. Given the strong possibility that future operations could, as in Kosovo, be conducted at medium altitude, we have considered how best to be prepared for such an eventuality. Precision guided munitions, including the RAF's Laser Guided Bombs (Paveway II and Paveway III), achieved good results in the Kosovo crisis. The RAF had built up their precision attack capability as a consequence of lessons from the Gulf War and this paid dividends, with the laser-guided systems performing well and in accordance with expectations. Nevertheless, the limitations of our current laser-guided systems in poor weather were highlighted.

  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 30 October 2000, Official Report, column 272W, to my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith) about plans for improving laser-guided bombing performance. We intend to procure an interim all-weather precision guided bombing capability for the RAF and have selected Raytheon Systems Corporation to supply the RAF Tornado GR4 aircraft, subject to the successful completion of contractual negotiations, with Enhanced Paveway Bombs.

  We keep our training in precision-guided attacks under review to ensure that our crews are properly trained to employ the equipment they operate.

  Ranges (Crown Immunity)
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if Crown immunity applies to the Tons Warren Range at the head of Luce Bay, Galloway; and if such immunity extends to prescribed sea areas adjacent to both that range and Kirkcudbright Ranges, Galloway. [135107]

  Mr. Spellar
  Crown immunity is an expression used by lawyers to refer to exemptions for the Crown which appear in legislation. Whether or not the Crown is exempt from certain legislation in respect of the sites in question will depend on the precise terms and effects of that legislation.

  Army Overstretch
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 30 October 2000,Official Report, column 276W, what percentage of Army commitment and what interval between deployments his Department assesses to be optimal in order for overstretch to be alleviated; and if he will make a statement. [136743]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 6 November 2000]: We concluded during the Strategic Defence Review process that for the Army, six-month operational tours and an average interval between tours of 24 months are optimum for operational effectiveness and retention. We do not identify an optimum percentage figure for commitment levels, which are a reflection of operational deployments. Whether such deployments are sustainable depends on a number of factors, including the nature of the task and duration of the commitment, which are not reflected in overall percentage figures on commitment levels.

  Nuclear Submarines
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how often nuclear submarines are inspected for safety. [137215]

  Mr. Spellar
  Royal Navy nuclear submarines are subject to a rolling programme of planned inspection and maintenance. The periodicity of this work is designed to ensure the safety of the nuclear reactor and the submarine as a whole. For example, certain reactor protection systems are inspected every 24 hours, while some hull and support system components are examined every few months. In addition, there are major overhaul periods, which can take some two years to complete, when further inspections are made.

  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what effect the cracks in the cooling system of HMS Tireless will have on the immediate environment; and if the cracks resulted from a design flaw in the nuclear submarines. [137212]

  Mr. Spellar
  Since her arrival in Gibraltar on 19 May, HMS Tireless has undergone routine radiation monitoring and has had no effect on the immediate environment. During her repair, no radioactive contamination of any kind will be released into the environment either within HMS Tireless or externally in Gibraltar. All nuclear waste arising from her repair will have extremely low levels of radioactivity and will be returned to the UK in specially constructed tanks.

  At present there is no evidence to suggest that the defect found in some, but not all, hunter-killer submarines, has resulted from a design flaw. It is feasible that the defect could have arisen from the manufacturing process when the submarines were built or have some other origin. The analysis of the evidence collected so far is, as yet, inconclusive.

  European Forces
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what the official language of the European forces as defined in EU Council document SN 300/99 will be; [136298]

  (2) if (a) the NATO flag or (b) the EU flag will be the official flag of the European forces as defined in EU Council document SN 300/99. [136299]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 6 November 2000]: The European forces referred to in EU Council document SN 300/99 are the pool of capability needed to achieve the Headline Goal. The Headline Goal states that, by 2003, EU nations should be able to assemble, deploy rapidly and sustain up to 60,000 troops capable of undertaking the full range of crisis management tasks.

  In the event of an EU-led or NATO-led operation being launched, each nation would decide when and how to commit their forces and each nation would be under their own national command and national flag.

  National forces deployed on an EU-led operation in support of this goal will speak their own language. The issue of working language between national forces or in
  224W
  Multinational Headquarters has not yet been addressed in the EU context. However, in NATO the working language for these purposes is English.

  Iraq (Southern No-fly Zone)
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on how many occasions(a) coalition aircraft and (b) UK aircraft patrolling the southern no-fly zone in Iraq have released ordnance in response to violations from (i) 20 December 1998 to 17 May 2000 and (ii) 17 May to date indicating in percentage terms over said periods (1) the nature of the threat, (2) the category of the target attacked and (3) the tonnage of ordnance released on each category of target in proportion to the overall tonnage released in said periods; and if he will make a statement. [136593]

  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 7 November 2000]: For the period 20 December 1998 to 17 May 2000 I refer the right hon. and learned Gentleman to the answer I gave him on 6 June 2000, Official Report, column 170W.

  Saddam Hussein continues to try to kill coalition aircrew conducting legitimate humanitarian patrols. Coalition patrols respond to these attacks only in self-defence. If Saddam stopped trying to kill our aircrew we would not have to react in this way.

  Between 18 May and 31 October 2000 coalition aircraft were directly threatened by the Iraqi air defence forces in the southern no-fly zone on 55 occasions, and responded in self-defence on 16 occasions against Iraqi military facilities posing a direct threat to coalition forces. UK aircraft released ordnance on eight occasions. Details of the threats broken down by percentage, are as follows:

  Percentage

  (i) Nature of threat by percentage

  Aircraft Violations of southern no-fly zone

  4

  Anti-Aircraft Artillery/Surface to Air Missile Firings

  91

  Hostile Electronic Activity

  5

  (ii) Category of Target attacked by percentage

  Integrated Air Defence System

  100

  (iii) Tonnage of Weapons Released by percentage

  Integrated Ground Based Air Defence System

  100

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what tonnage of ordnance has been released by(a) coalition and (b) UK aircraft in operations to maintain the southern no-fly zone in Iraq from 17 May to date; and if he will make a statement. [136594]

  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 7 November 2000]: Between 18 May and 31 October 2000 coalition aircraft patrolling the southern no-fly zone released some 60 tonnes of ordnance. The UK element of this figure was some 11 per cent. These weapons were released in self-defence in response to Iraqi threats to coalition aircraft.

  Flooding (Armed Forces)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what role the armed forces have played in dealing with the recent floods in the UK. [137314]
  225W
  Mr. Spellar
  The armed forces are always ready to respond to requests from the emergency services to provide help and support in the event of national disaster. Over the past week they have responded to numerous requests to help with flood relief. At the peak about 600 service personnel were providing assistance in numerous locations, performing tasks such as the reinforcement of flood defences and the evacuation of residents. Chinook helicopters have been used to move sandbags to inaccessible areas and Sea King helicopters have conducted rescue missions for people trapped by floodwaters.

  The armed forces are continuing to provide assistance in several areas, and they remain ready to respond to further calls from the emergency services, wherever the need may arise.

  RAF Innsworth
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to reduce the number of MOD police at RAF Innsworth; and if he will make a statement. [136987]

  Dr. Moonie
  The complement of Ministry of Defence Police at RAF Innsworth reduces from six to two on 1 April 2001. A review of the possible need to strengthen MDP resources in the wider area is currently nearing completion.

  War Graves
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to review the income provided to gardeners employed by the Commonwealth War Graves Commission. [136980]

  Dr. Moonie
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) on 31 October 2000,Official Report, columns 341-42W.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Mr. Roger Sylvester
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Solicitor-General when a decision will be made on the bringing of charges against officers from Tottenham police station in connection with the death of Mr. Roger Sylvester; and if he will make a statement. [136975]

  The Solicitor-General
  The investigation report of the Essex police has been considered carefully by the Crown Prosecution Service, in accordance with the tests set out in the Code for Crown Prosecutors. Further medical evidence has recently been obtained and is urgently being considered by the Crown Prosecution Service. It is expected that the Crown Prosecutor reviewing the case will be in a position to complete the review by the end of this month. I will write to my hon. Friend when a decision has been made.

PRIME MINISTER

  Performance and Innovation Unit
  Angela Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister what additional projects are planned for the Performance and Innovation Unit; and if he will make a statement. [137757]

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will publish the remit given to the Performance and Innovation Unit to make a study of the future of renewable energy; what resources are to be committed to the study; and by when he has asked the PIU to report. [135431]

  The Prime Minister
  I have asked the Performance and Innovation Unit to undertake the following further projects:

  (i) how to achieve better availability of drugs to prevent and treat HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria in developing countries, and help achieve the targets for these diseases agreed at the G8 Okinawa summit. The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will be the Sponsor Ministers for this project, which will report by summer 2001.

  (ii) to carry out an analysis of the extent, nature and main causes of under-investment in work force development, and to bring forward proposals for solutions. The Minister for Transport will be the Sponsor Minister for this project, which will report by autumn 2001.

  (iii) to examine the contribution that renewable energy technologies could make to economic growth and environmental protection within the context of using natural resources more efficiently to support sustainable development. The Minister for Health will be the Sponsor Minister for this project, which will report by autumn 2001.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Hawk Aircraft (Indonesia)
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what licences to permit the sale of spare parts for Hawk fighters in Indonesia have been granted in the past 12 months; and what reports he has received concerning the Hawks used in civil conflicts in(a) East Timor and (b) other parts of Indonesia. [136655]

  Dr. Howells
  Between 1 November 1999 and 31 October 2000, four Standard Individual Export Licences (SIELs) and one Open Individual Export Licence (OIEL) were issued covering the export to consignees or end-users in Indonesia of spares for Hawk aircraft. These figures have been obtained by searching the ECO's computer databases using the entries relating to military aircraft spares.

  As regards the receipt of any reports concerning the use of Hawks, I have been informed by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office that they understand Hawks are regularly deployed to various parts of Indonesia for routine training.

  I also understand that the FCO are not aware of any evidence that Hawks have ever been used for counter insurgency in East Timor or in Indonesia.

  Civil Servants (Relocation)
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which relocation companies currently hold contracts with his Department for the relocation of civil
  227W
  servants; when those contracts were last renewed; where the contracts were advertised; and what the length and value of each contract is. [137190]

  Dr. Howells
  Since May 1997, the Department has used only one company for relocating civil servants, Cendant Relocation Services (previously known as Bradford and Bingley Relocation Services and Black Horse Relocation Services). The contract was last let in November 1999. The contract was not advertised; six companies were invited to tender. The contract runs until 31 October 2002 (with provision to extend if necessary). Its value at award was £950,000 a year.

  Post Offices
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many(a) Crown post offices, (b) franchised post offices and (c) sub-post offices there are in each parliamentary constituency. [137010]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 6 November 2000]: I refer to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) on 29 November 1999, Official Report, column 22W.

  Milk Marque
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions he has had recently with representatives of farming organisations regarding the division of Milk Marque into three separate processing companies. [137231]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 7 November 2000]: None since my announcement on 2 May that the successors were free to develop milk processing activities if they wished.

  Household Debt
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list those organisations invited to attend the recent summit on household debt. [137254]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 7 November 2000]: I invited the following organisations to the conference on tackling over-indebtedness which I hosted on 30 October:

  Association of Payment Clearing Services

  British Bankers Association

  British Retail Consortium

  Cabinet Office—Social Exclusion Unit

  Consumer Credit Association

  Consumer Credit Trade Association

  Consumers Association

  Council of Mortgage Lenders

  Creation Financial Services

  Credit Services Association

  Department for Education and Employment

  Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions

  Department of Social Security

  Department of Trade and Industry—Insolvency Service

  228W

  Equifax

  Experian

  Federation of Independent Advice Centres

  Finance and Leasing Association

  Financial Services Authority

  HM Treasury

  Lord Chancellor's Department

  Mail Order Traders Association

  Money Advice Trust

  National Consumer Council

  National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux

  National Pawnbrokers Association

  Office of Fair Trading

  Office of the Data Protection Commissioner

  Personal Finance Research Centre

  Scottish Executive

  Sheriffs of England and Wales.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what proposals he has to deal with irresponsible lending by financial institutions; [137255]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the outcome of the recent summit on household debt. [137253]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 7 November 2000]: The meeting was very constructive and creditor representatives have agreed to work with the Government to look at ways of achieving more responsible lending and borrowing.

  I will shortly set up an industry task force to look at three key areas:
  improving the transparency of information provided to consumers before and when concluding a credit agreement, including the small print;
  adoption of core principles of lending practice, including examining an applicant's overall borrowing exposure and ability to repay; and,
  requiring clear notification to consumers on free and low interest agreements before the final payment is made.

  I hope that the task force will begin its work before Christmas and make recommendations to Government by spring next year.

  Genetically Engineered Animals
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the UK patents which have been(a) applied for and (b) granted between (i) 1 July 1999 and 27 July 2000 and (ii) since 28 July 2000 in respect of genetically engineered animals and processes for creating such animals; and if he will make a statement. [137293]

  Dr. Howells
  I can give information only about patent applications which have been published. Prior to publication such information is confidential. Patent applications filed since 1 July 1999 will not yet have been published, since publication occurs 18 months after filing. Between 1 July 1999 and 27 July 2000 four UK patents relating to genetically engineered animals or processes for creating them were granted. These were GB 2318578, GB 2331751, GB 2318792 and GB 2340493, all relating to reconstituting an animal embryo. Since 28 July 2000 there have been no UK patents granted relating to genetically engineered animals or processes for creating
  229W
  them. This information does not include applications filed at the European Patent Office which may have the effect of UK patents if granted by that office.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Africa Conflict Prevention Fund
  Mr. Browne
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the role and aims of the Africa Conflict Prevention Fund. [136456]

  Clare Short
  The aim of the Sub-Saharan Africa Conflict Prevention Joint Pool is to reduce violent conflict by improving the effectiveness, impact and efficiency of HMG's contribution to peacekeeping, conflict prevention and management. The Joint Pool's remit is limited to those policy areas and actions that directly contribute to conflict prevention, reduction and management in sub-Saharan Africa. The new arrangements will come into effect from FY 2001–02.

  Sterilisation
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if her Department funds incentivised sterilisation in developing countries. [136640]

  Clare Short
  The Department for International Development does not fund incentivised sterilisation.

  EU Aid (Corruption)
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment her Department has made of corruption in projects administered by the European Union. [136626]

  Clare Short
  We assess financial propriety in EC aid by evaluating the annual reports of the European Court of Auditors on the EC budget and the European Development Fund, and their series of special reports.

  Sector-wide Approaches
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what percentage of the bilateral aid budget is spent on sector-wide approaches. [136636]

  Clare Short
  To date spending on sector-wide work has been recorded within existing categories defined by the OECD's Development Assistance Committee and cannot be distinguished separately. However, work is under way to generate separate data in consultation with other donors.

  Malawi
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps she has taken to ensure that British aid to Malawi was not used to purchase 39 Mercedes cars for Government Ministers; and if she will make a statement. [136656]

  Clare Short
  British aid has not been used for this purpose.
  230W
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment her Department made of corruption in the Malawian education sector before her recent aid announcement. [136664]

  Clare Short
  The education programme reviewed financial management in the sector. The programme will itself be audited annually.

  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what support has been given to the Malawi Anti-Corruption Bureau. [136638]

  Clare Short
  We have provided £352,000 to support the Anti-Corruption Bureau. This comprises a long-term technical adviser and support for professional training. We are discussing additional support for staff, including assistance with prosecutions.

  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the level of corruption in the Malawian Government. [136663]

  Clare Short
  The Malawi Government inherited an ineffective and corruption ridden government mechanism from the Banda regime. It has repeatedly stated its commitment to rooting out corruption. We are working with the Government to set up systems to reduce corruption and to take action against those implicated.

  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list her Department's aid projects in Malawi. [136666]

  Clare Short
  My Department's aid projects in Malawi are as follows:

  Impact Area 1—Decentralisation and the Role of Government

  Trade Policy Project

  Impact Area 2—Economic and Financial Management

  Anti-Corruption Bureau

  Gemini Survey of Small and Medium Enterprises in Malawi

  Customs Support Programme Phase II

  Support to National Statistical Office

  Support for Medium Term Expenditure Framework

  Impact Area 3—Human Rights

  Radio for Development—(Ndizathuzomwe)

  Training of Lay Magistrates

  Clearance of Homicide Backlog

  Rehabilitation of Prison Farms

  Safety, Security and Access to Justice Programme

  Reform of the Penal Code

  Interim Police Organisational Development Project

  Paralegal Advisory Service

  Human Rights Small Grants Fund

  Community Service Pilot Project

  NGO Capacity Building

  'Through Rights to Needs for Marginalised Malawians'— (support for civil society)

  Impact Area 4—Sustainable Rural Livelihoods

  Farming Systems Integrated Pest Management

  Smallholder Seed Development

  Dedza Sustainable Livelihoods Project

  Lesson Learning and Testing of Safety Nets

  231W

  Targeted Inputs Programme

  Central Region Infrastructure Maintenance Programme

  Microfinance Expansion (FINCA)

  Financial Services for the Poor

  Training for Enterprise and Exports in Malawi

  Economics Activities Programme

  Concern Universal: Safe Water and Sanitation

  SC (UK) Salima Safe Water and Sanitation

  SC (UK) Dowa Safe Water and Sanitation

  Impact Area 5—Education and Health

  Primary Community Schools Project

  Schools Support Systems Project

  Support to Education Sector

  Safe Motherhood project

  College of Health Sciences

  National Health Plan

  National TB Programme

  Sexual and Reproductive Health Programme

  Supplementary Readers

  Support to National AIDS Control Programme

  Reform of Central Medical Stores

  Demographic and Health Survey

  Banja La Mtsogolo (Reproductive Health)

  Expanded Programme of Immunisation

  Essential Medical Laboratory Services

  Impact Area 6—Safeguarding the Environment

  National Forestry Action Plan

  Mulanje Forest Conservation.

  Human Rights Report
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions she has had with the FCO concerning the publication of the Annual Human Rights Report 2000. [137223]

  Clare Short
  FCO's Human Rights Report 2000 makes clear the close interaction between FCO, DFID and other departments in making and implementing the Government's human rights policy.

  This year's report is not a joint publication as it was in the past. We published in October 2000 a paper. "Realising Human Rights for Poor People", describing the Human Rights strategy of DFID and how we will integrate reporting on human rights into our annual departmental report.

  Contraception Advice
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what advice she gives to people in the Third World about contraception; and if she will make a statement. [136991]

  Clare Short
  The Government are committed to the principles of freedom and choice in reproductive health services as agreed at the 1994 International Conference on Population and Development, and to the International Development to attain universal access to reproductive health services before 2015.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Concessionary Travel
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he has taken to ensure that concessionary travel for pensioners is available on an equal basis between men and women. [135854]

  Mr. Hill
  The Government have a strong commitment to concessionary travel for elderly people. In the Transport Bill, we are introducing a statutory minimum for local authority concessionary travel schemes, which will provide pensioners and disabled people with half-fare travel or better on local buses with a free pass. In total about 6.5 million people will benefit from the new minimum standard. Under the terms of the Pensions Act 1995, the age of entitlement for concessionary travel for both men and women will be equalised at 65 by 2020.

  Aircraft Noise
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what response the Government have made to the proposed EU directive introducing common measurements of aircraft noise across the European Union. [136543]

  Mr. Mullin
  The European Commission's proposal for a Directive on the Assessment and Management of Environmental Noise is concerned with noise from transport and industrial sources generally, not only noise from aircraft. The Government have undertaken a consultation on the proposed Directive and prepared an initial regulatory impact assessment. Copies of the results were placed in the House Library on 19 October.

  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions he has had with airports and aircraft companies regarding the fitting of mufflers to aircraft; and if he will make a statement. [136997]

  Mr. Mullin
  Officials regularly discuss with stakeholders our strategy on new noise standards, including modification of aircraft to meet those standards. Studies have shown that fitting mufflers can impair an aircraft's performance and handling. Safety is, of course, paramount. Certifying the airworthiness of aircraft is a matter for the Civil Aviation Authority.

  Bus Lanes
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many miles of bus lanes there are in England; what steps are taken to enforce the regulations which apply to them; and if he will make a statement. [136669]

  Mr. Hill
  Allocation of road space is a matter for the local highway authority and information about the length of bus lanes in England is not kept centrally.

  Enforcement of bus lanes is shared by the police and local highway authorities. Stationary offences can be enforced by local authorities in London, and outside where authorities have taken on decriminalised parking enforcement. In London also, following trials in four

  233W
  boroughs, authorities will be taking on the enforcement of moving offences in bus lanes, using cameras. The Transport Bill contains powers which, when enacted, would allow authorities outside London to do the same.

  The Metropolitan police are currently responsible for all enforcement on the Greater London Authority road network, some of which uses cameras provided by Transport for London. Outside London the police are responsible for all bus lane enforcement except where the local authorities have taken on the relevant powers to do it themselves.

  Road Lighting
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will introduce lighting standards for all classes of road in urban areas; and if he will make a statement. [136425]

  Mr. Hill
  Standards for road lighting for all classes of roads can be found in the British Standard Code of Practice for Road Lighting, BS 5489. It is for the lighting authority concerned, normally the highway authority, to decide if a road should be lit and how to apply the standard.

  Sheep Dips
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what recent studies the Health and Safety Executive has carried out into the safety of organophosphorus sheep dips in relation to(a) humans and (b) sheep. [136205]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has completed studies on the following subjects since 1993:

  occupational hygiene in sheep dipping;

  biological monitoring techniques;

  spontaneous reactivation and ageing of acetylcholinesterase in human red blood cells after inhibition by orgnophosphorous (OP) pesticides;

  in vitro effects of OP pesticides on cell surface esterases and functional tests at the cellular level;

  the relative inhibitory effect of OPs and carbamates towards pseudocholinesterase in human blood;

  handling of sheep dip concentrates;

  the epidemiology of chronic effects of low level exposure to OP dips (two studies);

  human liver metabolism of OP pesticides;

  improvements to laboratory analyses for organophosphate pesticide exposure.

  Studies are ongoing on the following:

  the role of A-esterases in moderating the toxicity of OPs;

  psychological effects of exposures to OPs;

  genetic variation in susceptibility to chronic effects of organophosphate exposure;

  improved engineering controls for sheep dipping;

  risk perception of sheep dippers.

  All the studies in the list relate to effects in human beings. HSE does not conduct studies into the safety of dips on sheep. Such work is co-ordinated by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

  Asphalt Production Plants
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the compatibility of operating asphalt production plants with the proposed European Union directive on assessment and management of environmental noise, COM (2000) 468 Final, of 26 July. [136295]

  Mr. Meacher
  The proposed directive does not contain provisions for controlling noise at source. The proposals are for harmonisation of noise indicators and assessment methods for noise from transport sources and from industry in urban areas. They would require use of the common indicators and assessment measures to gather information about exposure of individuals to these sources in the form of noise maps. Information would be made available to the public, and would form the basis for action plans at the local level.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if he will list each of the asphalt production plants licensed to operate in England, indicating the owners, operators, output capacity and date opened in each case; [136705]

  (2) what recent assessment has been made by (a) his Department, (b) consultants to his Department, (c) the Environment Agency and (d) the Health and Safety Executive, of the potential environmental and health hazards posed by the operation of asphalt production plants; [136294]

  (3) if he will list the applications refused for the operation of asphalt plants for each of the past 10 years. [136531]

  Mr. Meacher
  I understand that the asphalt production referred to is roadstone coating. These plants are a prescribed process under Part I of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, and as a result must be authorised by the relevant local authority. Authorisations must include conditions aimed at ensuring the use of Best Available Techniques Not Entailing Excessive Cost (BATNEEC) to prevent and minimise air emissions. Statutory guidance is issued by the Secretary of State on what constitutes BATNEEC for various sectors, including roadstone coating plant. This guidance has been recently revised and published for consultation. A copy of this can be found on the Internet at http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/epns/laucons.html

  My Department does not collect the specific data requested for each of the 17,000 processes regulated by authorities in England and Wales. However, data taken from our annual Local Air Pollution Control (LAPC) statistical survey for 1998–99 allow us to prepare good estimates of the number of roadstone coating and mineral drying processes in England and Wales and which authority authorises them. This information is given in the table. The precise numbers cannot be produced without disproportionate cost. But under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 authorities have a duty to maintain a public register containing all particulars of any application for an authorisation made to an authority and the authorisation itself, and it would therefore be feasible to examine authority registers individually.

  The Environment Agency is reviewing the LAPC guidance, referred to above, on roadstone coating and mineral drying processes for the Department has

  235W
  examined air pollution impacts. In addition the National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory, which is produced under a departmental contract, estimates that in 1998 emissions from roadstone coating plant contributed 0.4 per cent. of UK particulate matter under 10 microns (PM10) and 0.3 per cent. of UK dioxin emissions. Copies of the latest National Air Emissions Inventory are available at http://www.aeat.co.uk/netcen/airqual/ and will be available in the Library of the House shortly. These plant are included in the national PM10 mapping project which in turn forms the basis of the national scale assessment of health effects of PM10.

  Some operators of roadstone coating plant use waste oil to fuel the process. The proposed EU Waste Incineration directive will apply to the burning of waste oil in such plant, and a copy of the Regulatory and Environmental Impact Assessment relating to the proposal was submitted to the House under cover of Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum EM 12791/98.

  The Health and Safety Executive has also made no assessment, though research into the health hazards at such plant, has been carried out in recent years. However, during their routine inspections of quarries where asphalt is produced, Health and Safety Executive inspectors would check that the employer has taken appropriate precautions in line with the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 1999. This would include checking the employer's risk assessment, which should detail how potentially hazardous substances are controlled in the asphalt production process, e.g. through extraction ventilation of dust/vapour/fumes, cleanliness of plant, protection clothing of plant operators etc.

  Authorities which have processes authorised under PG 3/15(96)—mineral drying and roadstone coating processes

  Authority

  Number

  Wolverhampton

  11

  Derbyshire Dales

  10

  Barking and Dagenham

  5

  Denbighshire

  4

  Tynedale

  4

  Greenwich

  4

  East Hertfordshire

  4

  North Somerset

  2

  Taunton Deane

  2

  South Kesteven

  2

  Hounslow

  2

  Huntingdonshire

  2

  Forest Heath

  2

  Suffolk Coastal

  2

  Winchester

  2

  Staffordshire Moorlands

  2

  Thurrock

  2

  Stoke-on-Trent

  2

  Plymouth

  2

  Leeds

  2

  Forest of Dean

  2

  East Cambridgeshire

  2

  Wigan

  2

  Bedford

  2

  Broxbourne

  2

  Mansfield

  2

  Ryedale

  2

  Vale of Glamorgan

  2

  Luton BC

  1

  St. Albans

  1

  North East Lincolnshire

  1

  East Staffordshire

  1

  Falmouth and Truro PHA

  1

  236W

  Authorities which have processes authorised under PG 3/15(96)—mineral drying and roadstone coating processes

  Authority

  Number

  Stroud

  1

  Cherwell

  1

  Telford and Wrekin

  1

  Arun

  1

  Halton

  1

  Stevenage

  1

  Reading D. C.

  1

  Carlisle

  1

  Richmondshire

  1

  Breckland

  1

  Doncaster

  1

  Bridgend

  1

  Vale Royal

  4

  South Bedfordshire

  4

  King's Lynn and West Norfolk

  4

  Congleton

  3

  Stockton-on-Tees

  3

  North Lincolnshire

  3

  Colchester

  2

  Stockport

  2

  Macclesfield

  2

  Wychavon

  1

  Gateshead

  1

  Mid Bedfordshire

  1

  Caradon

  1

  South Shropshire

  1

  Lichfield

  1

  Shepway

  1

  Reigate and Banstead

  1

  Sefton

  1

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  1

  South Bucks

  1

  Darlington

  1

  Preston

  1

  Selby

  1

  Lambeth

  1

  Lewes

  1

  Tendring

  1

  Rushmoor

  1

  Isle of Wight and Medina

  1

  Newcastle under Lyme

  1

  Poole

  1

  Restormel

  1

  Ipswich

  1

  Hillingdon

  1

  Waveney

  1

  Powys

  1

  Maidstone

  1

  Salford

  1

  Sheffield

  1

  Coventry

  1

  Northampton

  1

  Vale of White Horse

  1

  Sedgemoor

  1

  Chelmsford

  1

  South Cambridgeshire

  1

  Milton Keynes

  1

  Spelthorne

  1

  Mobile Phone Masts
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many responses to the consultation on mobile phone masts planning rules have been received(a) in total, (b) from members of the public, (c) from local authorities and other public bodies, (d) from mobile phone companies and associated businesses and (e) from hon. Members; of (a), how many were (i) broadly supportive of the

  237W
  Government's proposals and (ii) opposed; when he plans to announce changes to the rules; and if he will make a statement. [136942]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  At the end of the day, 7 November 2000, we had received 301 responses in total. Of these, 45 were from members of the public; 230 were from local authorities and other public bodies; 18 were from mobile phone companies and associated businesses; and eight were from hon. Members. The Department is currently analysing the responses. We will announce any changes as soon as practicable.

  Philharmonic Hall, Liverpool
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions are taking place between his Department and Liverpool City Council concerning(a) the future running and ownership and (b) the lease of the Philharmonic Hall. [136946]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  There are no discussions taking place between my Department and Liverpool City Council about the Philharmonic Hall.

  Rents
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what average proportion of their income working tenants of(a) local authorities, (b) registered social landlords and (c) private landlords paid in rent in the last 12 months. [136813]

  Mr. Mullin
  Estimates from the Family Resources Survey are shown in the table.

  Rent paid1 as a percentage of disposable household income 2: renting households containing at least one person in work: England: 1998–99

  Median percentage 3

  Local authority tenants

  12

  RSL tenants

  15

  Private landlord tenants

  21

  1 Rent paid by the household—does not include any amount met from Housing Benefit.

  2 Disposable household income means total income of household members less Income Tax and National Insurance contributions. It does not include any Housing Benefit received by the household.

  3 Rent paid as a percentage of disposable income is calculated for all households in the sample individually, and the median value shown here.

  Source:

  DETR analysis of DSS Family Resources Survey

  Housing Stock Transfer (Debt Repayment)
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what rates of interest Burnley borough council and Coventry city council were paying on debts redeemed under the arrangements for stock transfer; and what interest rates are expected to be paid on the new investment being raised by the successor bodies. [136817]

  Mr. Mullin
  For the purpose of calculating interest on notional Housing Revenue Account (HRA) debt, an individual Consolidated Rate of Interest (CRI) is calculated 238W
  for each authority. The CRI is a weighted average of actual interest payable on external debt during the year and notional interest on—or the opportunity cost of—internal debt. In the case of Burnley borough council and Coventry city council, the most recent CRI prior to their stock transfers were 6.85 per cent. and 8.37 per cent. respectively.

  The methodology for an authority to determine the proportion of debt repaid as a consequence of its stock transfer was announced to the House by my hon. friend the Minister for Housing and Planning on 16 November 1999, Official Report, column 250W. The actual amount of debt repaid is a matter for Burnley borough council and Coventry city council.

  The rates of interest payable by the successor Registered Social Landlords (RSLs)—Burnley and Padiham Community Housing, Whitefriars Homes North Ltd. and Whitefriars Homes South Ltd.—are a commercial matter for each organisation.

  Flooding
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the impact of recent heavy rainfall and flooding on the replenishment of depleted aquifers; and if he will make a statement. [136944]

  Mr. Mullin
  The UK's hydrological situation is monitored jointly by the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology and the British Geological Survey and monthly reports are published. This regular monthly monitoring shows that only a small minority of aquifers were slightly below their average capacity in early October. Recent heavy rainfall will have helped replenish those remaining depleted aquifers.

  Rural Areas
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what rural statutory duties have been placed on the regional development agencies; and which of these relate explicitly to agriculture. [136680]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 6 November 2000]: The statutory purposes of Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) relate to: economic development and regeneration, business efficiency, investment and competitiveness, employment, skills and training and sustainable development. They apply as much in relation to the rural parts of their areas as to the non-rural parts. In addition there is at least one member of every RDA Board with experience in rural issues. The statutory guidance on the preparation of RDAs' strategies states that RDAs should take account of the particular features of the region's rural areas including the role of land-based industries such as agriculture.

  Waste Disposal Authorities
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what sanctions his Department operates in respect of waste disposal authorities which do not include incineration as an option within their waste local plans. [137247]
  239W
  Mr. Mullin
  [holding answer 7 November 2000]: There are no specific sanctions. However, a waste local plan is required to set out credible land use policies to deliver the waste management strategy determined by the local waste disposal authority. The Secretary of State will scrutinise waste local plans and can make objections to any of the policies of a plan, which will be considered by an Inspector at a public inquiry. He may also object to any of the policies as proposed to be modified after such an inquiry. Should the Secretary of State and the relevant authority fail to agree on the policies he may direct that changes be made. The Secretary of State would not normally issue directions about particular sites or technical options, but would address plans which did not contain satisfactory policies to manage or dispose of the waste likely to arise in the authority's area. In exceptional circumstances the Secretary of State could call in part or all of a plan for his own determination.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will publish the guidance his Department issues to waste disposal authorities on incineration. [137246]

  Mr. Mullin
  [holding answer 7 November 2000]: The Government are currently publishing no such guidance.

  MV Derbyshire
  Maria Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on Mr. Justice Colman's report following the re-opened formal investigation into the loss of the MV Derbyshire. [137362]

  Mr. Prescott
  On 17 December 1998 I ordered that the Formal Investigation into the loss of the MV Derbyshire be re-opened in the High Court. Today the Honourable Mr. Justice Colman has published his report following a reading of his executive summary at the Royal Courts of Justice, London. The Court sat for a total of 54 days from the 5 April 2000 and concluded its oral hearings on the 26 July. I am grateful to Mr. Justice Colman for presiding over the hearings in the way he did and for producing such a comprehensive and conclusive report.

  My gratitude also extends to all those who contributed to the underwater survey of the wreck, the subsequent analysis of the survey material, the related research and the Court hearings. I particularly applaud the fortitude of the relatives and friends of those who died with the vessel. The demands of the investigation will have been difficult for many.

  Copies of Mr. Justice Colman's report have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Justice Colman finds that the ship sank through progressive collapse of the main hatch covers following significant flooding of some bow spaces through broken ventilators and air pipes located on the foredeck as a result of prolonged exposure to the sea states generated by Typhoon Orchid. He concludes that the officers and crew of the vessel were in no way to blame for the vessel's loss and specifically rejects any suggestion that the bosun's stores hatch on the foredeck was left unsecured by the crew.
  240W
  The report concludes that the exposure to risk of bulk carriers of the size of the Derbyshire whose hatch covers do no more than comply with the International Load Line Convention of 1966 poses an unacceptable risk to the safety of those vessels and their crews. Further, Mr. Justice Colman wishes to consider the results of a series of model tests relating to hatch cover strength initiated during the closing states of his investigation's oral hearings and may issue an Addendum to his report, if necessary.

  While Mr. Justice Colman is critical of the construction of the vessel at frame 65 he concludes that this did not contribute to the actual loss of the vessel and presented a very low additional safety risk to those on board.

  Mr. Justice Colman makes a total of 24 recommendations to enhance bulk carrier safety and safety generally. These are addressed, to the Department, Lloyds Register of Shipping, the International Association of Classification Societies and the International Maritime Organisation (IMO). In consultation with the others to whom recommendations are addressed the Department will prepare a response to each of the recommendations. This response will be presented to Parliament. In this respect the Department will give urgent consideration, in particular, to the recommendations that the IMO should revise the relevant provisions of the International Load Line Convention 1966 and that any enhanced requirements concerning hatch cover strength should also apply to existing ships.

  I hope that Mr. Justice Colman's report will finally provide the answers to the many questions surrounding the sinking of the MV Derbyshire in September 1980. I have every reason to believe that the work that has been done will enhance future bulk carrier safety. Though nothing can compensate them for their loss, I trust that this will provide some comfort to the relatives and friends of the 44 people who so tragically lost their lives with the ship.

  High Hedges
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to introduce legislation to make high hedges subject to planning control. [136983]

  Mr. Mullin
  The Government announced their plans to bring forward legislation on high hedges on 10 August. The new legislation, which will be introduced as soon as there is space in the parliamentary timetable, will not make high hedges the subject of planning control. It will instead make provision for a complaints system run by local authorities, designed to deal with individual disputes as they arise.

  Motorcycles
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to introduce(a) a transport plan to include the use of motorcycles, (b) guidelines to local authorities regarding excluding motorcycles from congestion and workplace charges and (c) the right of motorcycles to use bus lanes; and if he will make a statement. [136994]
  241W
  Mr. Hill
  Our 10-year plan, Transport 2010, and White Paper "A New Deal for Transport: Better for Everyone", both recognise the contribution that motorcycles can make to integrated transport in certain circumstances. There are complex matters to consider, including road safety, traffic management and environmental issues. We therefore set up an Advisory Group on Motorcycling, chaired by my noble Friend the Under-Secretary, to look at such issues. This will assist us in further defining the role of motorcycles within integrated transport.

  We intend to issue guidance to local authorities on how road user charging and workplace parking levy schemes might best be implemented and operated. This guidance will include advice on the treatment of motorcycles in charging and levy schemes.

  We need properly monitored pilot studies on motorcycle use of bus lanes before we can reach conclusions about this practice. We are seeking to encourage proposals from local authorities interested in conducting such pilots. A thorough examination of the traffic, safety and environmental implications for motorcyclists and other road users is required. We have contacted a number of authorities that have expressed an interest and will work with any who are keen to proceed to monitor and evaluate the effects.

  Diabetic Drivers
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to review the rules regarding the driving of mini-buses, large vans and small lorries by people with insulin-treated diabetes. [136993]

  Mr. Hill
  The Secretary of State's Honorary Medical Advisory Panel on Driving and Diabetes reviewed the licensing arrangements for Group 2 vehicles (vehicles above 3.5 tonnes) on 4 October. They agreed that those with good diabetic control and no significant complications should be allowed to apply for a licence for category C1 vehicles (between 3.5 and 7.5 tonnes). They

  Total New Deal starts

  (i) Unsubsidised employment

  (ii) Options

  (iii) Left register for other reasons

  (a) April 1999 to March 2000

  Office for Scotland

  22,372

  8,262

  9,384

  8,384

  Northern

  14,866

  5,148

  7,083

  4,713

  North West

  27,690

  9,920

  10,486

  9,882

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  21,408

  8,120

  8,139

  8,075

  Office for Wales

  11,753

  4,683

  4,938

  4,040

  West Midlands

  20,245

  6,909

  6,063

  7,933

  East Midlands and Eastern

  16,394

  6,519

  5,360

  6,196

  South West

  11,048

  4,883

  3,520

  4,021

  Laser

  46,745

  16,873

  13,095

  19,012

  (b) April 2000 to August 2000

  Office for Scotland

  8,621

  1,880

  1,016

  1,482

  Northern

  5,878

  1,174

  668

  822

  North West

  10,287

  2,036

  879

  1,695

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  8,020

  1,701

  653

  1,400

  Office for Wales

  4,568

  1,032

  487

  646

  West Midlands

  7,727

  1,339

  505

  1,383

  East Midlands and Eastern

  6,569

  1,389

  380

  1,126

  South West

  4,119

  1,128

  286

  764

  Laser

  16,948

  3,393

  1,104

  3,615

  242W
  will meet again on 8 November to finalise the details, after which public consultation will begin with a view to having the legislative changes in place by spring 2001.

  When the results of a recently initiated research programme into the risks of hypoglycaemia and driving become available in two to three years time, the Panel will review the arrangements for categories D1, C and D (minibuses, lorries and buses).

  Park Homes
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to introduce legislation to bring the sale of park homes under property and land law. [136978]

  Mr. Mullin
  Changes to the provisions on the sale of park homes were included in the recommendations of the Park Homes Working Party, published earlier this year. We have consulted on, and are considering, the Working Party's recommendations.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  New Deal
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many New Deal clients there were in each standard region, in(a) April 1999 to March 2000 and (b) April to August 2000; and how many of these (i) went into non-subsidised employment, (ii) went into New Deal options and (iii) left the register for other reasons. [134569]

  Ms Jowell
  The table shows, for each cohort of New Deal starts, the number who have subsequently gained an unsubsidised job from any stage of the process, begun an option from the gateway stage, and left New Deal and JSA for other reasons.

  The figures are not mutually exclusive, as people who started an option may have subsequently gained a job or left the register.

  University Tuition Fees
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what the average fee is for completion of a university course in the United Kingdom. [136006]

  Mr. Wicks
  For students eligible for student support the total tuition fees payable over the duration of their course will depend on the type and length of course as well as their and their families' financial circumstances. For those normally resident in England and Wales only a minority of full-time undergraduates are expected to pay the full fee, which in 2000–01 is set at £1,050 per year, and in future around a half are expected to pay no fees at all. Taking this into account, we estimate that the average total fee payable by an English or Welsh full-time student on a three year degree course (excluding any repeated years) will be around £1,360 in 2000–01 prices.

  Schools (Compensation Claims)
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate he has made of the effect on the number of compensation claims for perceived educational or other deficiencies in schools by present or former pupils, of the incorporation of the European Convention of Human Rights into UK law. [136259]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Although European Convention Rights were incorporated into UK law in October this year, the Government have observed them for 50 years. We believe that our domestic laws are in harmony with the Convention and we have undertaken a thorough review of our policies and procedures over the past few months. We think these steps reduce the risk of a successful challenge. As with any new legislation, we will keep the situation under review as the law develops.

  Higher Education Research
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what research he has commissioned in the past three years from the Centre for Research in Higher Education. [136557]

  Mr. Wicks
  The Department has not directly commissioned any research from the Centre for Research in Higher Education in the last three years.

  Special Educational Needs
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what redress is available to parents when a local education authority fails to identify a named person on statements for pupils with special educational needs. [137102]

  Jacqui Smith
  Should a local education authority fail to give notice in writing to the parent of the name of the person to whom he may apply for information and advice about the child's special educational needs when serving a copy of the statement on the parent of the child, the parent should ask the LEA to do so immediately. If this does not succeed, it is open to the parent to ask the Secretary of State to investigate in order to try and resolve the issue.

  Correspondence
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he will reply to the letters of 6 June and 18 July from the hon. Member for Vale of York concerning the widow's pension of Mr. A. R. Pickering of Rufforth, York. [137211]

  Mr. Wicks
  I have replied to the hon. Member today, Wednesday 8 November 2000.

  Student Loans
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will estimate the additional cost as net saving to the Exchequer of increasing the cost of raising the threshold for repayment of income-contingent student loans to(a) £13,000, (b) £15,000 and (c) £17,000 at real interest rates of (i) 0 per cent., (ii) 1 per cent., and (iii) 2 per cent., annually for the years up to 2004–05 assuming student numbers continue on current trends and the proportion of income taken remains at the current level. [136976]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 7 November 2000]: The information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Connexions Service
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on recruitment and training of personal mentors to date. [137033]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 7 November 2000]: Connexions Partnerships have been issued with guidance, drawing on the innovative work of the Connexions Pilots, to assist them to meet our requirement that they identify in their delivery plans how they will recruit the extra staff required to deliver the service from a variety of backgrounds and sectors and with a range of expertise.

  A training programme is being developed to meet the varying needs of the range of people who will become Connexions Service personal advisers, and to ensure that all are provided with appropriate training. One element of this programme, the Diploma of Personal Advisers, is currently being piloted in Connexions pilot areas. Further guidance on the recruitment and training of Connexions Service personal advisers will be issued shortly.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what consultations he has held with the National Youth Agency and the Connexions Service on matters and activities of mutual concern. [137034]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 7 November 2000]: We have consulted widely on the development and implementation of the Connexions Service. The National Youth Agency and other partners in the youth field have been active participants in a number of working groups looking at different aspects of the new service, including the Professional Formation, Inspection and Standards and Involving Young People Working Groups and the Youth Service Transition Group. The National Youth Agency has also taken the opportunity to respond to public consultations.

  Further Education (Staff Checks)
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what guidance he has issued to further education colleges in respect of police checks for college staff working on school link courses for 14 to 16-year-olds; and if he will make a statement. [135926]

  Mr. Wicks
  DfEE Circular 9/93 makes it clear that all staff selected for posts which involve substantial unsupervised access on a sustained or regular basis to children under the age of 16 should undergo a police check before appointment.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  New Year (Licensing Regulations)
  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to deregulate liquor licensing regulations for new year's eve and new year's day. [135576]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Henderson), on 26 October 2000,Official Report, column 203W.

  Secure Training Centres
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment has been made of the operation and success of each of the secure training centres since opening; for each of the centres(a) what percentage of children breached their orders, (b) what percentage of children re-offended during the period of their order, (c) what percentage of children has been reconvicted during the period of their order, (d) what assessment has been made of the provision of education and training, (e) what percentage of staff has experience of working with children, (f) how many and what percentage of the total number of staff have resigned since each centre opened, (g) how many incidents of self harm have been recorded, (h) how many incidents of concerted indiscipline have been recorded, (i) how many assaults on staff have been recorded and (j) what is the total amount of payment reductions for contract failures; and if he will make a statement. [135581]

  Mr. Boateng
  Each secure training centre (STC) is subject to comprehensive inspection by the Social Services Inspectorate (SSI), who may be accompanied by Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons and by one or more of Her Majesty's Inspectors of Schools (OFSTED), at least once every three years. There are also annual inspections to check that the secure training centre is meeting core requirements. Other inspections, with or without notice, can take place at any time of the year; and each centre is subject to a pre-opening inspection. Annual and triennial inspection reports are placed in the House of Commons Library as they become available.

  The Inspectors' reports show that, after significant initial operational difficulties at the first STC, Medway, both it and the newer centres at Rainsbrook and Hassockfield have progressively developed to provide a good standard, comprehensive regime for difficult young juveniles.
  246W
  (a) The Secure Training Order (STO) was available from March 1998 to March 2000. 379 children received STOs of whom 319 went to STCs, and the others to local authority secure units. 20 per cent. of those who went to Medway, 8 per cent. of those who went to Rainsbrook and 4 per cent. of those who went to Hassockfield were returned to custody for breach of STO supervision.

  The STO was replaced by the Detention and Training Order (DTO) in April 2000. Information on DTO breaches is not held centrally.
  (b) and (c) This information is not collected routinely but research is under way. The report of the Policy Research Bureau into the first year at Medway "Evaluation of Medway Secure Training Centre", released on 4 October 2000, recorded a 67 per cent. re-offending rate for those at that establishment. Wider research commissioned by the Youth Justice Board into DTO re-offending is being carried out by the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders (NACRO), the Centre for Crimes and Justice Studies and the Policy Research Bureau. Results are expected in March 2002.
  (d) Home Office monitors based at each STC ensure that the terms of the contracts including on education and training are met on a daily basis. The SSI's annual and triennial inspection reports are in the Library.
  (e) This information is not available. The contracts specify minimum qualifications, skills and experience requirements. All staff receive Home Office-approved training in understanding and dealing with disturbed adolescents.

  (f) The number and percentage of staff (custody and teaching staff) who have resigned since each centre opened is as follows:

  Opened

  Resignations

  Percentage

  Medway

  17 April 1998

  123

  45

  Rainsbrook

  1 July 1999

  43

  28

  Hassockfield

  17 September 1999

  49

  35

  (g), (h) and (i) Recorded incidents of self harm, concerted indiscipline and assaults on staff are as follows:

  Self harm

  Concerted indiscipline

  Assaults1 on staff

  Medway

  32

  43

  193

  Rainsbrook

  36

  3

  56

  Hassockfield

  16

  19

  33

  1 Assaults exclude "pushing and shoving"

  (j) To date, financial penalties reflecting contract failures by the Operating Contractor at each STC total £663,240 (Medway); £ 155,152 (Rainsbrook); and £45,808 (Hassockfield). These cover failure to meet the scheduled opening date of the STC, non-availability of trainee places and failure to deliver specified services.

  Whistleblowers
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 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. [135491]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 30 October 2000]: Civil servants in the main Home Office and its agencies may raise any matter of concern in confidence with one of several nominated officials. Details of how to do so are notified to all staff from time to time by means of an

  247W
  office notice, which also contains an up-to-date list of the nominated officials. This was most recently circulated on 18 August 2000.

  Stop and Search
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many(a) arrests have been made and (b) charges have been brought by each police force as a result of stops and searches under section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 in each year since it came into force; and what has been the nature of the charges; [136085]

  (2) how many stops and searches have been carried out by each police force, using powers other than section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, in each year since section 60 of the Act came into force; [136084]

  (3) how many stops and searches have been carried out by each police force under section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 in each year since it came into force; and how many of these involved the searching of vehicles. [136083]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The information requested is published annually in Home Office Statistical Bulletins "Operation of Certain Police Powers under PACE, England and Wales, 1995, 1996, 1997–98 and 1998–99", copies of which are available in the Library. (Issue numbers are 12/96, 27/97, 2/99 and 9/00).

  No information is held centrally on the number of charges brought, following arrest under section 60.

  The number of searches of vehicles under section 60 for the years 1996–97, 1997–98 and 1998–99 are contained in the following table. Data for 1995 and the first quarter of 1996 are not available centrally.

  Searches of vehicles under section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994

  England and Wales

  Number

  Police force area

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Avon and Somerset

  —

  1

  33

  Bedfordshire

  14

  6

  —

  Cambridgeshire

  —

  —

  —

  Cheshire

  2

  —

  —

  Cleveland

  —

  —

  —

  Cumbria

  —

  —

  —

  Derbyshire

  1

  1

  —

  Devon and Cornwall

  —

  —

  —

  Dorset

  —

  —

  1

  Durham

  —

  —

  —

  Essex

  —

  —

  —

  Gloucestershire

  —

  —

  —

  Greater Manchester

  11

  —

  —

  Hampshire

  —

  —

  —

  Hertfordshire

  —

  —

  —

  Humberside

  —

  —

  —

  Kent

  5

  1

  10

  Lancashire

  1

  —

  —

  Leicestershire

  —

  2

  —

  Lincolnshire

  —

  —

  —

  London, City of

  —

  —

  —

  Merseyside

  —

  —

  —

  Metropolitan Police

  22

  20

  —

  Norfolk

  —

  3

  —

  Northamptonshire

  —

  —

  —

  Northumbria

  —

  —

  —

  North Yorkshire

  —

  —

  —

  248W

  Searches of vehicles under section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994

  England and Wales

  Number

  Police force area

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Nottinghaamshire

  26

  68

  5

  South Yorkshire

  —

  12

  —

  Stafforddshire

  2

  2

  2

  Suffolk

  —

  5

  —

  Surrey

  —

  —

  —

  Sussex

  —

  —

  —

  Thames Valley

  3

  1

  2

  Warwickshire

  —

  —

  —

  West Mercia

  2

  4

  19

  WestMidlands

  1

  3

  2

  West Yorkshire

  2

  —

  —

  Wiltshire

  —

  1

  38

  Dyfed Powys

  —

  —

  1

  Gwent

  —

  —

  —

  North Wales

  —

  —

  —

  South Wales

  —

  —

  2

  Total

  92

  130

  115

  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what percentage of the area declarations made by each police force under section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, have been by(a) officers above the rank of superintendent, (b) officers of the rank of superintendent and (c) officers below the rank of superintendent in each year since it came into force; [136088]

  (2) on how many occasions in each year since it came into force each police force has used section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 to declare an area as one in which stops and searches can take place; and on how many of these occasions the power was extended beyond 24 hours; [136082]

  (3) how many convictions have been obtained by each police force as a result of charges brought following stops and searches under section 60 of the Criminal Justice Act 1994 in each year since it came into force. [136086]

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

  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the breakdown by ethnic origin of those persons stopped and searched by each police force under section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 in each year since it came into force; and what was the ethnic origin of the population as a whole in the area of each police force. [136087]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The available information relates to 1998–99 and is contained in the tables.

  Stop and searches of persons under section 60 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, by ethnic appearance

  England and Wales 1998–99

  Ethnic appearance of person searched

  Police force area

  White

  Black

  Asian

  Other

  Not known

  Avon and Somerset

  1,085

  115

  43

  15

  32

  Bedfordshire

  27

  1

  1

  —

  1

  Cambridgeshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cheshire

  137

  5

  2

  —

  —

  Cleveland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cumbria

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  249W

  Stop and searches of persons under section 60 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, by ethnic appearance

  England and Wales 1998–99

  Ethnic appearance of person searched

  Police force area

  White

  Black

  Asian

  Other

  Not known

  Derbyshire

  64

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Devon and Cornwall

  55

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dorset

  10

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Durham

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Essex

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Gloucestershire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Greater Manchester

  132

  22

  5

  —

  7

  Hampshire

  19

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Hertfordshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Humberside

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Kent

  38

  6

  1

  —

  —

  Lancashire

  75

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Leicestershire

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Lincolnshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  London, City of

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Merseyside

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Metropolitan Police

  273

  75

  45

  15

  6

  Norfolk

  7

  1

  116

  5

  —

  Northamptonshire

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Northumbria

  54

  1

  —

  —

  4

  Estimated1 population aged 10 and over by ethnic origin and police force area mid 1998

  Ethnic origin

  Police force area

  White

  Black4

  Asian

  Other5

  Total

  Avon and Somerset 2

  1,281,800

  10,000

  6,900

  8,100

  1,306,800

  Bedfordshire2

  438,400

  11,600

  23,400

  5,700

  479,200

  Cambridgeshire2

  605,100

  5,700

  12,600

  4,300

  627,800

  Cheshire3

  852,200

  1,900

  2,800

  3,900

  860,800

  Cleveland3

  473,200

  1,000

  6,300

  2,100

  482,600

  Cumbria3

  432,900

  400

  500

  1,100

  434,900

  Derbyshire2

  826,000

  5,800

  15,800

  2,600

  850,200

  Devon and Cornwall3

  1,372,400

  2,500

  1,300

  5,000

  1,381,200

  Dorset3

  610,000

  1,000

  1,300

  3,300

  615,600

  Durham3

  529,600

  700

  1,400

  1,800

  533,600

  Essex2

  1,318,000

  4,800

  10,300

  7,600

  1,340,000

  Gloucestershire3

  478,900

  3,500

  3,100

  2,500

  488,100

  Greater Manchester2

  2,094,900

  28,800

  88,700

  17,800

  2,230,200

  Hampshire2

  1,527,000

  5,600

  9,300

  9,500

  1,551,400

  Hertfordshire2

  731,000

  6,700

  14,500

  9,500

  761,800

  Humberside3

  763,600

  1,700

  3,000

  3,200

  771,600

  Kent2

  1,343,700

  6,600

  14,800

  8,600

  1,373,800

  Lancashire3

  1,189,300

  4,300

  44,600

  6,500

  1,244,600

  Leicestershire2

  739,800

  5,500

  59,700

  4,100

  809,000

  Lincolnshire3

  546,300

  1,200

  1,100

  2,100

  550,600

  London, City of3

  4,300

  6—

  100

  200

  4,700

  Merseyside2

  1,209,600

  5,800

  5,300

  8,800

  1,229,400

  Metropolitan Police2

  5,465,700

  498,200

  431,000

  240,900

  6,635,800

  Norfolk3

  692,400

  1,700

  1,300

  3,400

  698,800

  Northamptonshire3

  514,900

  6,700

  8,000

  4,200

  533,800

  Northumbria3

  1,237,900

  1,900

  7,400

  5,400

  1,252,600

  North Yorkshire3

  650,800

  1,000

  1,200

  2,600

  655,700

  Nottinghamshire2

  872,700

  12,300

  12,900

  4,600

  902,500

  South Yorkshire2

  1,106,600

  8,200

  17,300

  5,600

  1,137,700

  Staffordshire2

  913,900

  6,300

  8,400

  2,700

  931,300

  Suffolk3

  572,000

  6,900

  1,800

  4,300

  585,00

  Surrey2

  667,600

  2,500

  10,200

  8,000

  688,300

  Sussex2

  1,299,500

  4,700

  9,900

  10,500

  1,324,600

  Thames Valley2

  1,735,300

  21,600

  43,600

  19,200

  1,819,700

  Warwickshire3

  430,000

  2,400

  10,500

  2,400

  445,300

  West Mercia3

  981,500

  3,500

  6,600

  4,700

  996,300

  West Midlands2

  1,976,200

  71,200

  197,200

  18,600

  2,263,200

  West Yorkshire2

  1,684,800

  21,400

  111,700

  11,700

  1,829,500

  Wiltshire3

  518,000

  2,700

  2,800

  3,500

  527,100

  Dyfed Powys3

  421,900

  600

  600

  1,700

  424,800

  250W

  Stop and searches of persons under section 60 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, by ethnic appearance

  England and Wales 1998–99

  Ethnic appearance of person searched

  Police force area

  White

  Black

  Asian

  Other

  Not known

  North Yorkshire

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Nottinghamshire

  428

  48

  16

  4

  —

  South Yorkshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Staffordshire

  212

  4

  3

  —

  2

  Suffolk

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Surrey

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Sussex

  12

  2

  —

  —

  —

  Thames Valley

  593

  —

  3

  —

  —

  Warwickshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,814

  West Mercia

  318

  22

  17

  1

  1

  West Midlands

  283

  28

  42

  4

  —

  West Yorkshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Wiltshire

  231

  6

  1

  4

  —

  Dyfed Powys

  29

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Gwent

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  North Wales

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  South Wales

  52

  —

  —

  —

  —

  England and Wales

  4,137

  337

  295

  50

  1,868

  251W

  Estimated1 population aged 10 and over by ethnic origin and police force area mid 1998

  Ethnic origin

  Police force area

  White

  Black 4

  Asian

  Other 5

  Total

  Gwent3

  476,000

  1,500

  3,500

  2,400

  483,300

  North Wales3

  573,700

  800

  1,100

  2,300

  577,800

  South Wales3

  1,056,300

  6,500

  9,600

  8,700

  1,081,100

  Total

  43,215,900

  797,800

  1,223,400

  485,700

  45,722,900

  1 The estimates are based on the mid-1998 population estimates from ONS.

  2 Estimates of numbers of individual ethnic groups are based on the 1996+1997+1998 Labour Force Survey.

  3 Estimates for ethnic groups based on the 1991 census.

  4 Includes mixed origin.

  5 Includes Chinese.

  6 Fewer than 50.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list those to be involved in the conduct of the proposed review of the voucher scheme for asylum seekers; and if evidence will be taken from(a) NGOs and (b) individuals. [136081]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Government have undertaken to invite all stakeholders and interested parties to make representations, and to place in the Library a list of those organisations which contribute to the review. Those invited to make representations will include hon. Members, Lords, non-governmental organisations, retailers, the Post Office, local government, the police and Sodexho Pass, the voucher supplier. We will also be undertaking fieldwork to investigate the views of asylum seekers. Others with evidence to contribute to the review are welcome to send this to the National Asylum Support Service.

  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are(a) the terms of reference and (b) the timescale for the proposed review of the voucher scheme for asylum seekers. [136080]

  Mrs. Roche
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), 20 October 2000,Official Report, column 210W.

  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions she has had with the South West Consortium for Asylum Seekers, with particular regard to future immigration policy; and if he will make a statement. [137001]

  Mrs. Roche
  I met with members and officers from the South West Consortium on 14 September to discuss the situation regarding National Asylum Support Service's requirements for accommodation in the current financial year. The meeting was not concerned with future immigration policy.

  Election Deposits
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his policy is on the level of the deposit required for UK parliamentary elections. [136269]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  In its 1998 report on Electoral Law and Administration, the Home Affairs Committee recommended that the deposit required to stand as a candidate in Westminster parliamentary elections should increase from £500 to £700 for the next general election
  252W
  and that it should be index linked thereafter. This recommendation will need to be considered in consultation with all the political parties represented at Westminster and the European Parliaments.

  Databases
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the investigation into leaks from the SIRENE bureaux in 1997 has identified the(a) source of the leaks and (b) recipient; and if he will make a statement. [136468]

  Mrs. Roche
  The particular circumstances of this breach of security are a matter for the Belgian authorities, whose investigations are continuing. The Government attach the highest importance to the maintenance of the security arrangements at the SIRENE bureaux. The integrity of the arrangements is vital to international judicial and law enforcement co-operation.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he has taken to ensure that the UK element of Schengen Information System-connected databases is of identical format to other connected databases. [136469]

  Mrs. Roche
  Arrangements for the United Kingdom's connection to the Central Schengen Information System database are still under consideration.

  Schengen Agreement
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if Article 26 of the Schengen Agreement requires parties to support harmonisation of indirect taxation within the Council of Ministers; and if the UK Government are exempt. [136471]

  Mrs. Roche
  Article 26 of the Schengen Agreement signed in 1985 was given effect through the Schengen Implementing Convention signed in 1990. Those provisions of the Schengen Implementing Convention dealing with certain aspects of the creation of the Single Market (Articles 120-125) were not given a legal basis in the European Union Treaties as they had been superseded by European Communities legislation. They are therefore not the basis of future Schengen development, and they were not included in the Council Decision on the United Kingdom's participation.

  Travel Advice (India)
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will issue guidance to UK citizens travelling to India about visiting the Sai Baba ashram. [136850]

  Mr. Hain
  I have been asked to reply.

  The FCO issues guidance for visitors to India through its Travel Advice Unit. This information is also available on the FCO web-site (www.fco.gov.uk).

  We have no specific guidance for UK citizens visiting any of the Sai Baba ashrams at Puttaparthi (Andhra Pradesh), Bangalore (Karnataka) or Shirdi (Maf harashtra). The police at Puttaparthi, the focus of celebrations to mark Sai Baba's birthday on 23 November, have assured our Deputy High Commission at Chennai (Madras) that preparations are already under way to meet the demands of the large congregation expected at the ashram.

  Animal Experiments
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what criteria are used to classify a project 1 procedure under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 as being likely to be of substantial severity; and if he will make a statement; [136599]

  (2) how many procedure 1 projects under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, as a proportion of the total, were in the substantial severity category for each of the last 10 years. [136600]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Guidance on the Operation of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 sets out the criteria for determining severity levels. Two different types of severity levels are set on project licences; a severity limit for each protocol authorised in the licence and an overall severity banding for the project.

  The severity limit for each protocol is determined by the upper limit of the expected adverse effects that may be encountered by a protected animal, taking into account the measures specified in the licence for avoiding and controlling these effects. It represents the worst potential outcome for any animal subjected to the protocol, even if it may only be, and often is, experienced by a small number of the animals to be used. Indeed, it may never be encountered.

  Protocols of substantial severity may result in a major departure from the animal's usual state of health or well-being. These include: acute toxicity procedures where significant morbidity is an endpoint; some efficacy tests of anti-microbial agents and vaccines; major surgery; and some models of disease, where welfare may be seriously compromised. If it is expected that even one animal would suffer substantial effects, the procedure would merit a substantial severity limit. The Secretary of State will not license any procedure likely to cause severe pain or distress that cannot be alleviated. Licence holders are required by conditions in both project and personal licences to minimise any pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm and to approach the set severity limit only when absolutely necessary.

  The assessment of the overall severity of a project reflects the cumulative effect of each procedure. This assessment is used to weigh the likely adverse effects on
  254W
  all the animals to be used against the benefit likely to accrue. It takes into account not just the level of suffering that might be reached, but also such factors as the number of animals involved; the frequency of use of each procedure; the proportion of animals that are expected to be exposed to the upper severity limits; and the length of time that animals will experience such adverse effects.

  The severity bandings of project licences were introduced into the Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals in 1998 at Appendix B. Figures before that date were not published in the annual statistics, but were generally included as part of the Annual Report of the Animal Procedures Committee.

  Figures are as follows:

  Number

  Project Licences issued during 1991

  Substantial

  11

  Total

  685

  Project Licences issued during 1992

  Substantial

  33

  Total

  1,257

  Project Licences issued during 1993

  Substantial

  21

  Total

  1,444

  Project Licences in force on 31 December 1994

  Substantial not readily available

  Total

  4,013

  Project Licences in force on 31 December 1995

  Substantial

  72

  Total

  3,977

  Project Licences in force on 31 December 1996

  Substantial

  66

  Total

  3,869

  Project Licences in force on 31 December 1997

  Substantial

  66

  Total

  3,765

  Project Licences in force on 31 December 1998

  Substantial

  66

  Total

  3,650

  Project Licences in force on 31 December 1999

  Substantial

  66

  Total

  3,481

  Trans-sexual Working Group
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the Trans-sexual Working Group established in April 1999 has reported to him; and if he will make a statement. [137315]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones), on 26 July 2000,Official Report, column 697W.

  Sex Offenders
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to require people convicted of sex offences overseas to register automatically as such on their return to the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [136985]
  255W
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I announced a review of the Sex Offenders Act 1997 in a written reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Hope),Official Report, 26 June 2000, column 395W. Whether and how sex offenders who are convicted abroad can be required to register is an issue which is being considered as part of that review.

  Mohammed Maizia
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will make a decision on the application by Mohammed Maizia to remain in the UK (Ref. M637152). [136990]

  Mrs. Roche
  Mr. Maizia's application has now received attention and his representatives will be contacted with a decision within seven days.

  Open Prisons (Absconders)
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have escaped from open prisons during(a) 1997, (b) 1998, (c) 1999 and (d) 2000, broken down into offences for which they were sentenced; and if he will make a statement. [136999]

  Mr. Boateng
  Prisoners who escape from open prisons are classified as absconders. The number of absconds from open prisons are given in the table.

  Number

  1997

  720

  1998

  607

  1999

  568

  2000 (up to 6 November)

  427

  A breakdown of these figures by offence could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Radio Broadcasting Licences
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to enable religious organisations to hold national radio broadcasting licences. [137003]

  Janet Anderson
  I have been asked to reply.

  Religious organisations are currently disqualified by provision of Paragraph 2 (1) of Part II of Schedule 2 to the Broadcasting Act 1990 from holding national radio licences. We will publish a White Paper later this year setting out the Government's proposals for reform of broadcasting and telecommunications regulation to ensure a framework is in place which recognises the developments in those industries. The ownership of radio licences for religious broadcasting is one of the issues being considered in that context.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Peacekeeping
  Mr. St. Aubyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about peacekeeping in Northern Ireland. [135603]
  256W
  Mr. Mandelson
  I support the Chief Constable's decision to deploy troops to give additional support to the police in dealing with the recent upsurge in violence in North and West Belfast, which has seen four men killed as a result of feuding between loyalist paramilitary organisations and which I strongly condemn. I know from my own visit to the Shankill just how much pain has been suffered and the Government will maintain a proper security presence in these areas to contain the treat.

  I also condemn the bomb attack on Castlewellan RUC station last week. This points up the risks taken by the RUC in carrying out their duties and the thoughts of the whole House will be with the severely injured Constable David Fegan and his family at this time.

  Peace Process
  Angela Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the impact of a stable economy on the peace process in Northern Ireland. [135605]

  Mr. George Howarth
  A stable and improving economy in Northern Ireland is contributing greatly to the peace process in Northern Ireland, helping to build confidence and demonstrating that Northern Ireland is moving into a brighter and more prosperous future. The peace process has in return benefited the Northern Ireland economy. The Belfast agreement gave a tremendous boost to economic activity in Northern Ireland and the transfer of responsibility for economic matters to the Northern Ireland Assembly on 2 December gave back to locally elected representatives the power to take vital economic decisions for the benefit of the people of Northern Ireland.

  Charlotte Atkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what impact terrorist violence over the summer has had on the prospects for sustained peace. [135612]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Terrorist violence over the summer and more recently has caused great suffering for many people in Northern Ireland. I hope the whole House will join me in condemning without reservation all of the recent violence and intimidation, which we all hoped had been left behind. I do not believe that it will prevent the achievement of a peaceful and prosperous society in Northern Ireland—that is what the overwhelming majority of people in Northern Ireland want and voted for in the Referendum.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the peace process in Northern Ireland. [135622]

  Mr. Mandelson
  We continue to make steady progress in the implementation of the Belfast agreement. The Northern Ireland Executive recently published its first Programme for Government, an impressive range of measures to be taken by the devolved Administration over the coming year. Decommissioning and building confidence remain important priorities. The independent arms inspectors recently carried out a further inspection of IRA arms dumps: they also met the Northern Ireland political parties last week. The security forces continue to take action to deal with dissident republican and loyalist violence. However, I am confident that recent violence
  257W
  will not deflect us from achieving for the people of Northern Ireland the real benefits that will flow from the full implementation of the Belfast agreement.

  Petrol Prices
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what discussions he has held with the Chancellor of the Exchequer about petrol prices in Northern Ireland. [135606]

  Mr. Howarth
  As the hon. Gentleman is well aware discussions between the Chancellor and Ministers on such matters, for obvious reasons, are confidential.

  However, if the hon. Gentleman exercises a little patience, he may hear some more on this subject from my right hon. Friend the Chancellor.

  RUC and Prison Service (Intimidation)
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent reports he has received of intimidation against recruits to, and members of, the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Northern Ireland Prison Service. [135607]

  Mr. Ingram
  During the period 1 January to 27 October 2000, there were 155 recorded reports of intimidation/threats against current and former members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. Over the same period, three general threats and 26 specific threats were recorded against members of the Northern Ireland Prison Service.

  Decommissioning
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about progress on decommissioning terrorist weapons. [135608]

  Judy Mallaber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the prospects for removing illegally-held weapons from Northern Ireland. [135611]

  Mr. Ingram
  Mr. Ramaphosa and Mr. Ahtisaari have reported that they have completed their second inspection of several IRA arms dumps. We welcome this development—it represents further progress and an honouring of commitments given at the beginning of May. I am confident the inspectors will report any further progress that has been made when they deem it appropriate to do so.

  Further progress still needs to be made by both Republican and Loyalist paramilitaries to meet their commitments to being a lasting peace to Northern Ireland.

  We would call upon the IRA to re-engage with the Commission to show that further progress will be made as promised in its statement in May.

  Mr. Savidge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he last met General John de Chastelain to discuss the decommissioning of paramilitary arms. [135614]

  Mr. Ingram
  Under the Good Friday Agreement the Decommissioning Commission operates as an 258W
  independent body to resolve the decommissioning issue. The Commission has provided written reports on progress on a number of occasions.

  I met General de Chastelain on Tuesday 24 October.

  Victim Support Programmes
  Mrs. Ann Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about Government programmes for the support of victims of crime. [135610]

  Mr. Rammell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about Government programmes for the support of victims. [135613]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer my hon. Friends to the oral answer I gave today to my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Hope), at columns 304-05.

  Flags
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the discussions he has held with the political parties about the flying of flags in Northern Ireland. [135615]

  Mr. Mandelson
  On 10 July I wrote to the leaders of the political parties in Northern Ireland requesting their views on the flying of flags in Northern Ireland. I considered all of the points made by the parties before preparing draft Regulations, which I then sent to the Northern Ireland Assembly for its consideration as I was required to do by the Flags (Northern Ireland) Order 2000. The Assembly reported its view to me on 18 October. I considered the Assembly's Report, and the views of the parties set out within it very carefully, before laying draft Regulations before Parliament on 23 October.

  Criminal Justice Review
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he will publish the implementation programme for the criminal justice review. [135616]

  Mr. Mandelson
  The report of the Review of the Criminal Justice System was published in March this year and the period of consultation ended on 29 September. The Government fully endorse the general approach taken in the report. Informed by the consultation exercise we have now put in hand the detailed work needed to prepare legislation and an implementation plan. As the Prime Minister said on 5 May, these will both be published next April.

  Security Situation
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the current security situation in Northern Ireland. [135618]

  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the current security situation. [135619]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Government believe the main paramilitary groups are maintaining their cease-fires; however, there remains a threat from those groups who
  259W
  are opposed to the peace process as evidenced by the recent explosion at Castlewellan RUC Station. These attacks are carried out against the will of the vast majority of the people of Northern Ireland who voted for the Good Friday agreement as the only way forward.

  We condemn the recent upsurge in Loyalist violence and appeal to those leaders with influence over paramilitary organisations to bring this senseless feud to an end before the lives of more families are ruined.

  Dr. George Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he is taking to create a normal security environment in Northern Ireland. [135623]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Government are committed to normalisation of security as quickly as the threat allows. Major progress has already been made. There are currently under 13,500 troops in Northern Ireland—the lowest level since 1970. Since the ceasefire 31 military bases have been demolished or closed. The Borucki sangar in Crossmaglen has also been demolished.

  The Chief Constable recently announced a number of further normalisation measures including the demolition of the six Fermanagh patrol bases, the closure and demolition of Long Kesh army base and, with effect from 1 October, the closure of Strand Road Holding Centre. Further steps will be taken when it is safe to do so.

  Organised Crime
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about organised crime in Northern Ireland. [135620]

  Mr. Ingram
  Organised crime has no place in a decent society. On 25 September the Secretary of State announced a new multi-agency approach to tackling organised crime in Northern Ireland. An Organised Crime Task Force has been established and met for the first time on 25 October. I chair the Task Force. The Task Force brings together a number of agencies to provide a strategic focus and to develop the existing co-ordination arrangements between the agencies.

  Paramilitary Activity
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the recent level of paramilitary activity in Northern Ireland. [135600]

  Mr. Mandelson
  We condemn the recent upsurge in violence in North and West Belfast. In the past number of days four men have been killed as a result of feuding between loyalist paramilitary organisations. I know from my own visits to these communities just how much pain has been suffered. The Government are resolute in their determination to tackle this issue and maintain a proper security presence in these areas to deal with this threat. We support the Chief Constable in his decision to re-introduce troops on to the streets of Belfast to provide additional support to the police.

  We also condemn the recent attack on Castlewellan RUC Station. Any attack of this nature is to be deplored but to attack police officers as they carry out their duty in protecting the public is particularly heinous. Our thoughts are with Reserve Constable David Fegan and his family at this time.

  British-Irish Council
  Mr. Pound
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made over the summer in relation to the British-Irish Council. [135522]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  I have been asked to reply.

  Over the summer, the participants in the British-lrish Council have been taking forward work in a number of the areas identified as priorities at the first BIC summit meeting last December. The second BIC summit was due to take place in Dublin on Wednesday 18 October, hosted by the Irish Government. Regrettably, the summit had to be postponed following the death of the right hon. Donald Dewar MP MSP, First Minister of the Scottish Executive. Action is in hand to identify a new date for the summit.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Cereals Producers
  Sir Nicholas Lyell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received about the falling incomes of cereal farms as a result of the weakness of the euro and the need for the Government to claim agrimonetary compensation from the European Commission prior to the end of October; what his policy is on this matter; and if he will make a statement. [R][135080]

  Ms Quin
  I refer the right hon. and learned Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson) on 2 November 2000,Official Report, column 620W.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what cereals area payments(a) are and (b) were payable in 1999 to British farmers. [136964]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 6 November 2000]: Farmers are entitled to payments under the Arable Area Payments Scheme in respect of cereals grown and claimed under the rules of that Scheme. In 2000, farmers in England will receive £217.27/ha on 98.36% of their payable area of eligible cereal crops (other than maize). In addition, and subject to the agreement of the European Commission, they are expected to receive £7.37/ha in agrimonetary compensation on the same area. In 1999 they received £208.06/ha on 99.06 per cent. of their payable area. In addition they received a payment of £33.66/ha in agrimonetary compensation and are now receiving a further instalment of £11.22/ha on the same area. Producers of maize in England received the same payments but on a lower area (33.15 per cent. of the payable area in 1999 and 35 per cent. of the payable area in 2000). Farmers in other parts of the UK receive lower payments in line with historic yields but, other than in Scotland, do not suffer area penalties.

  Knacker Industry
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent discussions he has had with representatives of the knacker industry. [135143]
  261W
  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 30 October 2000]: Although no Minister has recently met with representatives of the knacker industry, my officials do have frequent discussions with them.

  Poultry
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask die Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what his annual budget for poultry science research and development was in(a) 1998 and (b) 1999; and in each of those years what proportion of this budget was spent on research aimed at increasing broiler chicken (i) growth rate and (ii) feed efficiency. [136155]

  Ms Quin
  The annual budget for poultry science research and development was £1.0 million in 1998 and £940,000 in 1999. In addition, a further £1.66 million and £1.44 million were spent in 1998 and 1999 respectively on animal welfare projects relevant to poultry nutrition and welfare. There were no projects during 1998–99 aimed at increasing standard broiler chicken growth rate. The work we are funding on increasing broiler chicken feed efficiency in 1998–99 was £325,000 and £338,000 in 1999–2000. This research is driven by a need—with the reduction in pollutants in mind—to move away from the use of animal proteins in chicken feed and to utilise home grown sources of proteins.

  Exports
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what percentage of agricultural products made in the UK are exported; and to which countries. [136613]

  Ms Quin
  It is not possible to calculate accurately the percentage of agricultural products made in the UK which are exported, as many exports will be in the form of processed food and feed products. Using a broad assumption to value just the raw commodity element of these processed products, it is estimated that approximately 20 per cent. of UK agricultural production in 1999 was exported.

  The table lists the main countries to which food and feed products were exported in 1999. The values relate to the actual product value, including the full value of processed products.

  Exports of UK food and feed products in 1999

  £ million

  Irish Republic

  1,158

  France

  864

  Germany

  482

  Spain

  408

  Netherlands

  369

  Belgium

  304

  Italy

  284

  USA

  274

  Denmark

  117

  Portugal

  108

  Other

  1,429

  Total

  5,797

  Beef Exports (France)
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when legal proceedings brought by the EU against France for prohibiting the importation of British beef will be heard by the European Court of Justice. [136196]

  Ms Quin
  The timing of the various stages in the European Commission's case against the French Government is determined by the European Court of Justice. The case is now entering the final phase of the written procedure and once that is concluded the Court will fix a Hearing date. It is possible, but not certain, that the Hearing could take place by Spring 2001. However, if the French Government, the Commission and the Court all agreed that a Hearing was not necessary, the oral procedure could be dispensed with altogether leaving the Court to begin its deliberations in advance of the Advocate General's Opinion and the Court's Judgment.

  Floods (Lewes)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if the report he has commissioned from the Environment Agency into the recent floods in Lewes will consider the workings of the entire river system including the Uck and the Ouse; if he will undertake to fund the recommendations in that report; and if he will make a statement. [136568]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 6 November 2000]: The report I have commissioned will look at the whole Sussex Ouse catchment, including the Uck. It will consider the rainfall/hydrology which caused the flooding, the existing flood defences and the options available to help improve the situation. The report will also link in with the planned Sussex Ouse River strategy, which will consider the management of the Ouse defences in the longer term. Contemplating the strategy will commence in 2001–02 and it is scheduled for completion in 2002–03.

  It will be for the Environment Agency to secure funding for any programme of work resulting from these investigations, having regard to available funding and other priorities in the area. MAFF grant is available for any capital works which meet economic, technical and environmental criteria and achieve an appropriate priority score. Part of the additional £51 million announced by the Deputy Prime Minister for flood defence measures will be to provide funding for whole catchment area studies.

  GM Seeds
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list each application for national seed listing of genetically modified varieties, indicating(a) the application number, (b) the company name, (c) the approximate date for decision, (d) the release consent number, (e) the date consent was granted and (f) if different from the national list applicants, the applicants' names. [136486]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 6 November 2000]: The information is set out in the table.
  263W

  Genetically modified plant varieties—National list applications under consideration—November 2000

  Application number

  Name of breeder's reference

  Species

  NL application

  Earliest date of proposed decision

  DETR release consent/marketing consent reference, holder and date granted

  35/959

  Archimedes

  Spring Oilseed Rape

  Aventis CropScience NV Belgium

  Test and trials complete1

  Marketing Consent 94/M1/11 Granted 28 February 1996 (Aventis)

  35/960

  Socrates

  Spring Oilseed Rape

  Aventis CropScience NV Belgium

  Tests and trials complete1

  Marketing Consent 94/M1/11 Granted 28 February 1996 (Aventis)

  35/1174

  PHW98-407

  Winter Oilseed Rape

  Aventis CropScience NV Belgium

  Tests and trials complete2

  98/R19/18 Application 4 December 1998 Granted 22 March 1999 (Agrevo)

  35/1210

  PH96S452

  Spring Oilseed Rape

  Aventis CropScience NV Belgium

  Tests and trials complete2

  98/R19/18 Application 4 December 1998 Granted 22 March 1999 (Agrevo)

  35/1211

  PH96S443

  Spring Oilseed Rape

  Aventis CropScience NV Belgium

  Tests and trials complete2

  98/R19/18 Application 4 December 1998 Granted 22 March 1999 (Agrevo)

  35/1318

  PHW99-429

  Winter Oilseed Rape

  Aventis CropScience NV Belgium

  November 20013

  00/R33/6 and 00/R33/6S Granted 23 August 2000 (Aventis)

  35/1397

  PHW00-43

  Winter Oilseed Rape

  Aventis CropScience NV Belgium

  November 20023

  00/R33/6 and 00/R33/6S Granted 23 August 2000 (Aventis)

  35/1398

  PHW00-434

  Winter Oilseed Rape

  Aventis CropScience NV Belgium

  November 20023

  00/R33/6 and 00/R33/6S Granted 23 August 2000 (Aventis)

  35/1494

  PHW01-441

  Winter Oilseed Rape

  Aventis CropScience NV Belgium

  November 20023

  00/R33/6 and 00/R33/6S Granted 23 August 2000 (Aventis)

  35/1495

  PHW01-446

  Winter Oilseed Rape

  Aventis CropScience NV Belgium

  November 20023

  00/R33/6 and R33/6S Granted 23 August 2000 (Aventis)

  45/774

  STURGEON

  Sugar Beet

  Novartis Seeds AB Sweden

  Tests and trials complete2

  96/R21/4 Application 24 December 1996 Granted 5 February 1997 (Novartis)

  45/798

  KWS 8191

  Sugar Beet

  Kleinwanzlebener Saatzucht AG Germany

  Tests and trials complete2

  97/R19/13 Application 20 January 1997 Granted 17 March 1997 (Agrevo)

  45/813

  DS 8003

  Sugar Beet

  Danisco Seeds UK

  Tests and trials complete2

  96/R21/4 Application 24 December 1996 Granted 5 February 1997 (Novartis)

  45/850

  KWS 9193

  Sugar Beet

  Kleinwanglebener Saatzucht AG Germany

  April 20013

  00/R32/2 Granted 28 April 2000 (Aventis)

  45/865

  HM 1976

  Sugar Beet

  Novartis Seeds AB Sweden

  April 20013

  99/R21/6 Granted 3 May 2000 (Novartis)

  45/877

  ANDORRA

  Sugar Beet

  Danisco Seeds UK

  April 20013

  99/R21/6 Granted 3 May 2000 (Novartis)

  45/931

  H1 0156

  Sugar Beet

  Novartis

  April 20023

  99/R21/6 Granted 3 May 2000 (Novartis)

  45/950

  H7 5011

  Sugar Beet

  Advanta

  April 20023

  00/R13/10 Granted 28 April 2000 (Advanta)

  51/833

  CHARDON LL

  Maize

  Aventis GMBH Germany

  4—

  Marketing Consent C/F/95/12/07 Published 5 August 1998 (Aventis)

  51/886

  SHERIDAN

  Maize

  Van Der Have Netherlands

  February 20015

  Marketing Consent C/F/95/12/07 Published 5 August 1998 (Aventis)

  1 Marketing consent permits seed multiplication only. No proposed decision will be considered until the new Seeds (National List of Varieties) Regulations come into force.

  2 Tests and trials complete, National Listing cannot be considered unless a marketing consent under Directive 90/220 is promulgated.

  3 Subject to promulgation of marketing consents under 90/220 and satisfactory completion of tests and trials.

  4 A proposal to add this variety to the National List has been made. This is currently the subject of written representations and a public hearing.

  5 Subject to satisfactory completion of tests and trials.

  Fishing Vessels (Safety)
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about grant aid to encourage the safe operation of fishing vessels. [137406]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government wish to see the fishing industry develop a positive safety culture. Former schemes providing grants simply for equipment have not been successful in cutting accident rates. One of the keys to improving safety is good training and that will be our priority. We therefore propose to make up to £0.5 million available in each of the next three financial years to deliver safety training for fishermen in England. These
  264W
  payments, to be funded through the EU structural fund for fisheries, will cover the fees to enable courses to be offered to fishermen without charge.

  My Department is in discussion with the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency and the Fisheries Departments of the devolved Administrations to develop a suitable new package of training measures. These will include courses to update safety awareness among fishermen hitherto exempt from the requirement for safety training; to provide training in accident prevention and risk assessment; and safety training for newcomers to the industry. We will consult the fishing industry on our proposals.
  265W
  We also intend that grant aid should be available through FIFG to support the trialling of innovative and experimental equipment to improve vessel safety.

HEALTH

  HIV and Hepatitis C
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to discuss the costs of drugs used in the treatment of HIV and hepatitis C infections with representatives of the Pharmaceutical Industry. [136161]

  Ms Stuart
  I have no such plans. The prices of branded medicines are controlled indirectly by the Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme (PPRS) which limits the profits which companies can make from the sale of these products to the National Health Service. Companies have freedom of pricing within this ceiling on overall profits. A new scheme was introduced in October 1999 under which the prices of medicines covered by the PPRS were reduced by 4.5 per cent. overall giving savings to the NHS of around £200 million per year. Copies of the agreement, containing full details, are in the Library.

  At the same time, hospitals can aggregate their purchasing power for these products and the NHS Purchasing and Supplies Authority then competitively tenders this business on their behalf. In some cases hospitals themselves negotiate direct with the pharmaceutical industry.

  Free Dental Examinations
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the cost of restoring free dental examinations to(a) all adults, (b) all those over the age of 65, (c) all those over the age of 60 and (d) all those over the age of 55 years; and if he will make a statement. [136483]

  Mr. Hutton
  About a quarter of dental examinations carried out on adults in the General Dental Service have either no patient charge or else the patient pays a reduced charge. Making dental examinations free to all adults would reduce patient charge revenue in England by:

  £ million

  Adults

  Annual reduction in patient charge revenue

  Age 18 and over

  75

  Age 65 and over

  13

  Age 60 and over

  19

  Age 55 and over

  26

  The total cost of making the change would exceed the reduction in patient charge revenue because additional demand would be stimulated for dental examinations and there would be some additional dental treatment.

  Free Eye Examinations
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the cost of restoring free eye examinations to(a) all adults, (b) all those over the
  266W
  age of 65, (c) all those over the age of 60 and (d) all those over the age of 55 years; and if he will make a statement. [136484]

  Mr. Hutton
  In April 1999 we made everyone aged 60 and over eligible for a free, National Health Service sight test. Children, people on low incomes and people suffering from or predisposed to eye disease are also eligible. Our estimates of the costs per annum of extending eligibility further are £75 million for all adults and £15 million for people aged 55 and over.

  Free Prescriptions
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the cost of restoring free prescriptions to(a) all adults, (b) all those over the age of 65, (c) all those over the age of 60 and (d) all those over the age of 55 years; and if he will make a statement. [136482]

  Ms Stuart
  The cost of restoring free prescriptions to all adults would be £380 million a year. The cost of restoring free prescriptions to all adults aged 55 and over is estimated to be £70 million a year. Those who are over the age of 60 are already exempt. These figures relate solely to the loss of patient charge revenue and make no allowance for any increase in the number of prescription items that might result from this change.

  Carers
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps are being taken to ensure that people with responsibilities as carers are not discriminated against in the labour market. [136577]

  Mr. Hutton
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to him the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms Hodge) on 6 November 2000,Official Report, columns 41-42W.

  Duchess of Kent Military Hospital
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received on the impact on civilian patients of the closure of the Duchess of Kent military hospital; and if he will make a statement. [137198]

  Mr. Hutton
  The decision to close the Duchess of Kent military hospital, Catterick was made by the Ministry of Defence following extensive local consultation. Since the closure on 1 July 1999, 13 representations concerning the future provision of treatment for civilian patients have been made to the Secretary of State for Health by hon. Members and by the general public.

  Community Health Councils
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on his plans to replace community health councils. [136996]

  Ms Stuart
  The National Health Service Plan sets out the new structures which will be set in place to extend and increase patient and citizen empowerment across all sectors of NHS. Chapter 10 of the NHS Plan announced the establishment of a Patient Advocacy and Liaison
  267W
  Service in every trust. At the moment we are conducting a major exercise to take the views of stakeholder groups nationally and locally on the specific details of how the new arrangements will be set up and co-ordinated in practice. The results of this exercise will be disseminated in the New Year.

  Nursing Home Beds (Gloucestershire)
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about(a) the number of nursing home beds in Gloucestershire and (b) the demand for them. [136992]

  Mr. Hutton
  On 31 March 1999 there were 3,532 nursing care places in 126 nursing care homes in Gloucestershire. Information on the number of beds on 31 March 2000 will be published shortly in "Community Care Statistics: Residential Personal Social Services, England, 2000".

  The demand for nursing home beds varies on a daily basis but is currently at high levels. Gloucestershire Social Services and local National Health Service bodies are working together to develop a whole systems approach to the commissioning of nursing home care.

  Care Needs (Elderly People)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will conclude his consideration of models of assessment of people's care needs; and if he will list the models under consideration. [136209]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 6 November 2000]: In line with the National Health Service Plan, we aim to introduce a single assessment process for health and social care for older people by April 2002, with protocols to be agreed locally between health and social services. Initially this will be introduced for those older people who are most vulnerable, for example those living alone, or recently discharged from hospital or entering residential or nursing care. Work on developing the assessment process is being taken forward as part of the development of the National Service Framework for older people.

  With regard to nursing care, the NHS will make an assessment of the nursing care requirements of nursing home residents. The Department is working in close consultation with a number of organisations on a standardised approach for this part of the assessment process, which will be ready for implementation in October 2001. There are a range of nursing assessment tools currently available, though each is likely to require some development to deliver the outputs needed.

  Patient Advocacy and Liaison Service
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what steps he is taking to ensure that the new Patient Advocacy and Liaison Service will be independent of the NHS trusts in which it operates; [136070]

  (2) what steps he is taking to ensure that staff employed in the Patient Advocacy and Liaison Service will be accountable to line managers outside the trust in which they are working; and if he will make a statement; [136071]
  268W
  (3) who will set targets for and monitor performance of staff employed in the Patient Advocacy and Liaison Service. [136072]

  Ms Stuart
  [holding answer 6 November 2000]: Chapter 10 of the National Health Service Plan announced the establishment of a Patient Advocacy and Liaison Service (PALS) in every NHS trust. At the moment, we are conducting a major exercise to take the views of stakeholder groups nationally and locally on the specific details of how the new arrangements set out in Chapter 10 of the NHS Plan should be set up and co-ordinated in practice. The accountability arrangements and performance standards for PALS and PALS staff will be considered as part of this exercise. Also, the issue of independence will be resolved. A clear statement on the outcome of the exercise will be given in the new year.

  Children's Carers
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the checking procedures into(a) carers in children's homes and (b) owners of children's homes with particular reference to persons suspected of being under investigation or who have been subject to investigation by (i) the police and (ii) other authorities. [136487]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 6 November 2000]: The Department maintains a list under the Protection of Children Act of persons considered to be unsuitable to work with children. The Department for Education and Employment maintains a separate list of persons barred from working in educational establishments. The Protection of Children Act 1999 requires all regulated child care organisations (including all children's homes) to check against these lists everyone they intend to employ in work that brings them into contact with children. Criminal record checks are also available and where the person being employed will have regular unsupervised contact with children the information supplied will include relevant non-conviction information.

  The Children Act 1989 Guidance, Volume 4 sets out the types of checks that are expected on staff and others in children's homes with regular contact with children.

  A thorough investigation is made into any organisation or private individual applying to set up a registered voluntary or private children's home. This includes making reference checks with both employment and personal referees. Applicants are asked to supply details of their employment history. Applicants must satisfy the registration authority that they have relevant experience and qualifications. If it appears that further investigation is needed the registration authority can ask the police to check if the applicant has a criminal record. These arrangements will be extended in 2001 to small private unregistered children's homes which will be required to register with local authorities for the first time.

  In the future, with the introduction of the National Care Standards Commission, there will be a nationwide, comprehensive set of national minimum standards for all children's homes. These will set out the type of checks required on those owning and working in children's homes.

TREASURY

  Pensions Mis-selling
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list those employees in the financial services sector who have been disciplined by the regulatory authorities for misdeeds relating to the mis-selling of pensions, including financial penalties and those relating to terms of employment; and if he will make a statement. [135660]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  No individual employees have been disciplined by the regulators for failures to pursue the review of personal pensions mis-selling. However, the Personal Investment Authority, as the main regulator for firms carrying out the review, has taken disciplinary action by fining 314 firms over £7 million in total, expelling four and reprimanding one.

  Winter Deaths
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the number of excess winter deaths which occurred in 1999–2000, providing a breakdown for(a) each

  Excess winter deaths by age-group and Government Office Region of usual residence, 1994–95 to 1999–2000

  Age at death

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–20001

  England

  0-64

  2,090

  2,720

  2,930

  1,670

  2,900

  4,140

  65-74

  5,250

  6,690

  6,520

  3,890

  6,430

  7,210

  75-84

  9,110

  13,460

  16,490

  7,410

  15,430

  15,890

  85+

  9,310

  14,940

  18,900

  8,770

  19,250

  19,290

  All ages

  25,760

  37,810

  44,850

  21,730

  44,010

  46,520

  Wales

  0-64

  200

  190

  120

  90

  230

  270

  65-74

  270

  420

  490

  360

  540

  430

  75-84

  580

  920

  1,050

  480

  930

  1,110

  85+

  600

  910

  1,220

  350

  1,200

  1,150

  All ages

  1,650

  2,440

  2,880

  1,290

  2,900

  2,970

  North East

  0-64

  130

  250

  130

  110

  90

  310

  65-74

  260

  520

  490

  360

  470

  490

  75-84

  400

  650

  920

  530

  890

  1,040

  85+

  420

  650

  690

  550

  920

  890

  All ages

  1,210

  2,080

  2,220

  1,550

  2,370

  2,720

  North West

  0-64

  230

  630

  510

  280

  630

  470

  65-74

  960

  1,010

  1,070

  500

  1,230

  1,110

  75-84

  1,410

  2,060

  2,260

  980

  2,600

  2,070

  85+

  1,190

  1,940

  2,520

  1,010

  2,880

  2,510

  All ages

  3,790

  5,630

  6,360

  2,770

  7,350

  6,170

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  0-64

  130

  250

  240

  210

  260

  420

  65-74

  530

  820

  700

  470

  810

  690

  75-84

  1,030

  1,440

  1,810

  860

  1,800

  1,700

  85+

  1,110

  1,530

  1,880

  910

  1,900

  1,900

  All ages

  2,790

  4,040

  4,550

  2,460

  4,760

  4,710

  East Midlands

  0-64

  240

  170

  250

  130

  310

  400

  65-74

  570

  500

  470

  360

  550

  600

  75-84

  850

  1,110

  1,280

  700

  1,560

  1,280

  85+

  660

  1,140

  1,540

  820

  1,680

  1,620

  All ages

  2,330

  2,930

  3,540

  2,000

  4,090

  3,900

  270W
  English region, (b) Scotland, (c) Wales and (d) Great Britain by age band; and if he will provide corresponding estimates for each of the last five years. [135129]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 30 October 2000]: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Steven Webb, dated 8 November 2000:
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your parliamentary question asking for an estimate of the numbers of excess winter deaths which occurred in 1999–2000, providing a breakdown for each English region, Scotland, Wales and the GB figure by age band, and for corresponding estimates for each of the last five years.
  Figures are provided in the attached table for English Government Office Regions and for Wales. Figures are also provided for Great Britain but were only readily obtainable for all ages. Figures for Scotland are now the responsibility of the Scottish Executive.
  The figures for winter 1999–2000 are provisional and will only be finalised in October 2001 when data for all deaths occurring in 2000 becomes complete.
  Excess winter deaths are defined by National Statistics as the difference between the number of deaths during the four winter months (December to March) and the average number of deaths during the preceding autumn (August to November) and the following summer (April to July).
  271W

  Excess winter deaths by age-group and Government Office Region of usual residence, 1994–95 to 1999–2000

  Age at death

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–20001

  West Midlands

  0-64

  250

  250

  410

  250

  470

  480

  65-74

  600

  880

  730

  510

  750

  970

  75-84

  700

  1,580

  1,650

  800

  1,720

  1,820

  85+

  760

  1,460

  1,740

  900

  1,920

  2,100

  All ages

  2,310

  4,160

  4,530

  2,450

  4,860

  5,370

  Eastern

  0-64

  240

  180

  250

  170

  130

  400

  65-74

  550

  480

  710

  410

  640

  690

  75-84

  1,110

  1,380

  1,720

  930

  1,590

  1,810

  85+

  1,090

  1,830

  2,330

  1,020

  2,440

  2,070

  All ages

  3,000

  3,870

  5,010

  2,540

  4,800

  4,970

  London

  0-64

  380

  440

  430

  150

  410

  580

  65-74

  530

  860

  870

  320

  670

  940

  75-84

  1,370

  1,680

  2,240

  930

  1,690

  2,080

  85+

  1,220

  1,850

  2,390

  1,120

  2,160

  2.430

  All ages

  3,500

  4,830

  5,930

  2,530

  4,930

  6,030

  South East

  0-64

  220

  310

  420

  250

  370

  720

  65-74

  690

  940

  860

  560

  890

  1,080

  75-84

  1,330

  2,240

  2,770

  990

  2,190

  2,500

  85+

  1,750

  2,670

  3,600

  1,410

  3,260

  3,540

  All ages

  3,990

  6,150

  7,650

  3,200

  6,710

  7,830

  South West

  0-64

  280

  250

  300

  120

  230

  370

  65-74

  550

  680

  600

  400

  420

  640

  75-84

  920

  1,320

  1,830

  700

  1,380

  1.600

  85+

  1,100

  1,880

  2,320

  1,020

  2,100

  2,230

  All ages

  2,850

  4,140

  5,060

  2,230

  4,130

  4,830

  1 Provisional

  Excess winter deaths, all ages, Great Britain, 1994–95 to 1999–2000

  Year

  Number

  1994–95

  29,710

  1995–96

  43,910

  1996–97

  51,370

  1997–98

  25,630

  1998–99

  51,660

  1999–20001

  54,680

  1 Provisional

  Single Currency
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list those economies of the single currency with which a sustainable convergence must be demonstrated for the purpose of satisfying his first economic test as to whether entry into the euro is in Britain's economic interest. [136203]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The first test concerns sustainable convergence between Britain and the economies of a single currency.

  Illegal Fuel Imports
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the volume of road fuel imported illegally into Great Britain from the
  272W
  Republic of Ireland in the last 12 months; and what volume was so imported via the ports of Cairnryan and Stranraer. [137090]

  Mr. Timms
  No such estimate has been made.

  Civil Servants (Relocation)
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which relocation companies hold contracts with his Department for the relocation of civil servants; when the contracts were last renewed; where the contracts were advertised; and what the length and value of each contract is. [137191]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Treasury presently holds no contracts with relocation companies.

  Unemployment (Hendon)
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many long-term young unemployed there were in Hendon in(a) May 1997 and (b) now. [136952]

  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. Andrew Dismore, dated 8 November 2000:
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent question on the number of long-term young unemployed in Hendon in May 1997 and now. (136952)

  273W
  The Labour Force Survey (LFS) is the main source of labour market data on individuals used by the Office for National Statistics (ONS). The ONS preferred measure of unemployment is derived from the LFS and is defined on a consistent and internationally recognised basis set out by the International Labour Organisation (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. However, estimates for the number of ILO long-term young unemployed in the constituency of Hendon cannot be used as they are below the threshold for reliable data.
  ONS also publishes the monthly number of people who are claiming unemployment-related benefits, also known as the Claimant count.
  In May 1997 there were 160 18-24 year olds on the claimant count (computerised claims only). This fell to 9 by May 2000 and to 14 in September 2000. Constituency level claimant count figures are not seasonally adjusted so comparisons are best made year to year. Computerised claims do not include clerical claims which currently makes up around I per cent of the total claimant count.

  Tax Documents
  Mrs. Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he plans to publish the next tax ready reckoner and tax reliefs document; and if he will make a statement. [137676]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Treasury will today be publishing a booklet containing the estimates of the effects of various illustrative tax changes on tax receipts in 2001–02 and 2002–03 (plus 2003–04 for indirect taxes) and estimates of the costs of the main tax reliefs in 1999–2000 and 2001–02. Copies are being placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Financial Services Review Group
  Mr. Ian Stewart
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the establishment of a voluntary code for the Financial Services Review Group. [137678]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I am pleased to announce that the Government have appointed Dr. Anne Julius to chair the Group. The other members of the Group will be announced shortly.

  The review will examine:
  whether the voluntary codes for financial services are delivering sufficiently strong benefits to consumers;
  what scope there is to introduce greater independence and consumer representation in the drawing up of codes;
  what role there is for the Ombudsman in influencing or determining standards for consumers;
  whether greater information disclosure can be achieved without the need for further regulation.

  Dr. Julius will serve in a personal capacity, as will all the members of the group. The group will be asked to publish its report by April 2001.

  Devolution
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the increased costs to the Civil Service arising from devolution in Scotland and Wales. [136977]
  274W
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The costs arising from devolution in Scotland and Wales are the responsibility of the devolved administrations. They are expected to meet all the costs associated with devolution form within their existing budgets.

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many(a) families and (b) children in Hull have benefited from the working families tax credit; what is the total weekly sum involved; what estimate he has made of the number of families which are entitled to apply and have not done so; what further steps he plans to bring this entitlement to their attention; and if he will make a statement. [135593]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Estimates of the number of families in each local authority in receipt of the Working Families Tax Credit (WFTC) at the end of May, based on a 5 per cent. sample of awards, are shown at Table 9.3 in the WFTC Quarterly Inquiry for May 2000. A copy has been placed in the Library.

  The Inquiry also gives the average value of awards to families in the Yorkshire and the Humber Government Office Region. There are too few sample cases to provide reliable estimates of average awards, or of total expenditure, at the local authority level.

  We started a new phase of advertising for WFTC on 23 October, which includes national television, national and regional press, radio and advertising in women's and television magazines. This campaign will be running in the Hull area as in all other areas of the UK.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many(a) families and (b) children in Inverclyde have benefited from the working families tax credit; what is the total weekly sum involved; what estimate he has made of the number of families which are entitled to apply and have not done so; what initiatives he has undertaken to bring this source of income to their notice; and if he will make a statement. [135925]

  Dawn Primarolo
  For the number of families benefiting from WFTC in Inverclyde, and for details of the current advertising campaign, I refer my hon. Friend to my answer given above to my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara).

  There are too few sample cases to provide reliable estimates at the local authority level of total expenditure on WFTC, or of the number of children in families in receipt of WFTC. The WFTC Quarterly Inquiry for May 2000 gives the average number of children per family in receipt of WFTC in Scotland at that date is estimated at 1.8.

  National Insurance
  Barbara Follett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has completed his review of national insurance contributions for 2001–02. [137677]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I have completed the annual review under section 141 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992. In line with the reforms to national insurance contributions announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his March 1999 Budget and reaffirmed in his pre-Budget reports of 9 November
  275W
  1999 and 8 November 2000, I propose the following changes to take effect from 6 April 2001. These rates and limits will also apply to Northern Ireland national insurance contributions.

  Employers and Employees
  In line with the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992, the lower earnings limit for primary class 1 contributions is to be raised to £72 a week. It is set at the level of the basic retirement pension for a single person from April 2001 and rounded down to the nearest pound.
  The primary threshold for primary class 1 contributions will be aligned with the secondary threshold for secondary class 1 contributions and the weekly amount of the income tax personal allowance at £87 a week. This means that no tax or class 1 contributions will actually be paid on earnings below this level.
  The upper earnings limit for primary class 1 contributions will be raised to £575 a week to ensure a fair base of earnings liable to such contributions.
  The rate of secondary class 1 contributions payable by all employers is to be reduced by 0.3 per cent., from 12.2 per cent. to 11.9 per cent.

  The self-employed
  The rate of class 2 contributions is to remain at £2 a week.
  Self-employed people with earnings below the annual small earnings exception can apply to be exempted from paying class 2 contributions. This limit will be raised by £130 to £3,955.
  The annual lower and upper profits limits for liability to class 4 contributions will be raised respectively by £150 to £4,535 (in line with the income tax personal allowance) and by £2,080 to £29,900, to maintain the link with employees' earnings liable to class 1 contributions and ensure a fair base for contributions by the self-employed.

  National insurance contributions, proposed re-rating, April 2001

  Item

  2001–02

  Lower Earnings Limit, primary Class 1

  £72 per week

  Upper Earnings Limit, primary Class 1

  £575 per week

  Primary Threshold

  £87 per week

  Secondary Threshold

  £87 per week

  Employees' primary Class 1 rate

  10 per cent. of £87.01 to £575 per week

  Employees' contracted-out rebate

  1.6 per cent.

  Married women's reduced rate

  3.85 per cent.

  Employers' secondary Class 1 rate

  11.9 per cent. on earnings above £87 per week

  Employers' contracted-out rebate, salary-related schemes

  3 per cent.

  Employers' contracted-out rebate, money-purchase schemes

  0.6 per cent.

  Class 2 rate

  £2 per week

  Class 2 Small Earnings Exception

  £3,955 per year

  Special Class 2 rate for share fishermen

  £2.65 per week

  Special Class 2 rate for volunteer development workers

  £3.60 per week

  Class 3 rate

  £6.75 per week

  Class 4 rate

  7 per cent.

  Class 4 Lower Profits Limit

  £4,535 per year

  Class 4 Upper Profits Limit

  £29,900 per year

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  China
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he plans to have with hon. Members over the future of the EU/China human rights dialogue. [135765]

  Mr. Battle
  The Government take an active role in the EU in determining the direction and strategy for the EU/China Human Rights Dialogue. The UK proposed a review into strengthening the dialogue procedures at a joint COHOM/COASI meeting on 9 February. This was
  276W
  Class 3
  The rate of class 3 voluntary contributions will be increased by 20 pence to £6.75 a week.

  Share Fishermen
  The special rate of class 2 contributions for share fishermen, which allows them to build entitlement to contributory jobseekers allowance in addition to the other contributory benefits available to the self-employed, will remain at £2.65 a week.

  Volunteer Development Workers
  The special rate of class 2 contributions for volunteer development workers, which entitles them to the full range of contributory benefits, will be increased by 25 pence to £3.60 in line with the statutory formula of 5 per cent. of the primary class 1 lower earnings limit.

  Treasury Grant
  Although benefit expenditure from the National Insurance Fund will broadly match income, I need to ensure that the fund can maintain a prudent working balance throughout the coming year. In accordance with section 2(2) of the Social Security Act 1993, I propose to do so by prescribing that the maximum Treasury grant which may be made available to the fund in 2001–02 shall not exceed 2 per cent. of the estimated benefit expenditure for that year. Similar provision will be made in respect of the Northern Ireland National Insurance Fund.

  I shall be laying a draft re-rating order before Parliament in due course. This will accompany a report by the Government Actuary to myself and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security, which we shall jointly present to Parliament.

  The following table sets out the rates, earnings limits and thresholds for National Insurance Contributions proposed for 2001–02.

  supplemented by the GAC conclusions of 20 March which, at the Foreign Secretary's initiative, included a call for the setting of objectives. The Presidency envisage concluding the review by the GAC meeting on 4 December. The Foreign Affairs Committee is conducting an inquiry into the bilateral relationship with China, to which the Foreign Secretary gave evidence.

  European Union (Qualified Majority Voting)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what policy he will adopt at Nice on the extension of qualified majority voting. [136396]
  277W
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his policy concerning the balance of responsibilities between the United Kingdom Government and the European Union and proposals to change the method of voting in Brussels on(a) the approval of the rules of procedure of the Court of Auditors, (b) the appointment of the Court of Auditors, (c) the rules of procedure of the European Court of First Instance, (d) the rules of procedure of the European Court of Justice, (e) the appointment of the Deputy Secretary-General of the Council, (f) the appointment of the Secretary-General, (g) the Association of Overseas Countries and Territories and (h) the powers of the Court of Justice in Title IV. [136672]

  Mr. Vaz
  I refer the hon. Members to the answer I gave to the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), on 30 October 2000 Official Report, column 238W.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many times, and on what issues, Her Majesty's Government have used their veto in the EU in each of the last 10 years; and how many times vetoes were used in total in each of those years. [136773]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Council Secretariat does not hold figures on the number of times proposals for legislation are vetoed, and the figures sought could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The use of the veto on legislative proposals is comparatively rare. But the requirement for unanimity in the most sensitive areas of policy acts as an important discipline, helping to ensure that member states tend to develop proposals which all can support.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his policy is on the expansion of the aquis communautaire. [136393]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Government are clear about the benefits for the UK of co-operating with our European partners. But they are also clear that the Community should act only where the objectives cannot be better carried out by member states.

  Middle East
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if Her Majesty's Government will pass on to the UN Human Rights Commission inquiry information on human rights abuses collected by British consular staff in the Palestinian Occupied Territories. [136453]

  Mr. Hain
  We remain concerned about human rights abuses in the Occupied Territories, and if the special session of the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) to be convened in New York passes the UNHRC resolution convening the Commission of Inquiry, we will co-operate fully.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Palestinian Authority about the use of children during the clashes between Israelis and Palestinians. [137103]

  Mr. Hain
  I deplore the fact that children have been caught up in recent violence in the Occupied Territories,278W
  which has led to tragic loss of life and casualties among children. I appeal to both sides to ensure that every effort is made to protect children.

  Fishery Concessions (Tristan da Cuhna)
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the companies and vessels that hold the fisheries concessions in the area of Tristan da Cuhna. [136808]

  Mr. Hain
  Two companies hold fisheries concessions in Tristan da Cunha' s waters. They are:Eurex Limited of St. Peter Port Guernsey, which has exclusive rights to fish for lobster with a by-catch of finfish and octopus up to twelve miles from the coast. The concession is for five years with an option to renew for a further five years when it runs out in 2002. It operates the fishing vessels Kelso and Edinburgh.
  San Libatore, the offshore fishing company of Cook Strait Seafoods of Wellington, New Zealand, which has exclusive rights for trawling from 50 to 200 miles. This concession began on 1 September 2000 and runs for two years with an option to renew for a further three years when it runs out. It operates the fishing vessel San Libatore.

  Ad hoc licences are issued from time to time for single fishing trips.

  Trade (EU Market Access)
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what impact the EC's Everything but Arms initiative will have on the Cotonou Partnership Agreement. [136830]

  Mr. Caborn
  [holding answer 6 November 2000]: I have been asked to reply.

  None. The European Commission's proposal on improved market access for the 1 per cent. of products from the 48 Least Developed Countries (LDCs) which do not yet have tariff and quota free access to the EU will be implemented by adjustments to the EU' s Generalised System of Preferences (GSP) scheme. The Cotonou Partnership Agreement and the preferences it enshrines for the participating countries will be unchanged. However, the 39 Cotonou countries which are also LDCs would be able to gain some additional benefits if they export to the EU products covered by the proposed new GSP arrangements.

  Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when sanctions against Yugoslavia will be lifted. [136968]

  Mr. Vaz
  The EU oil embargo and flight ban have already been lifted with effect from 9 October. The remaining EU sanctions, with the exception of the arms embargo and the ban on the export of equipment which might be used for internal repression or terrorism, are being revised to ensure that only those measures aimed directly at Milosevic and those persons directly associated with him remain in place: this process should be complete by the end of November.

  The UN arms embargo and ban on arming and training for terrorist activities there, imposed by UNSCR 1160 (1998), will remain in place.
  279W
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if it is his policy that all the EU's economic sanctions against Yugoslavia should be lifted. [136967]

  Mr. Vaz
  The EU oil embargo and flight ban against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia were lifted on 9 October following the election of Vojislav Kostunica as President of the FRY. The remaining EU sanctions, with the exceptions of the arms embargo and ban on equipment which might be used for internal repression or terrorism, are being revised to target only Milosevic and those individuals associated with him.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will urge the European Union to provide finance to reconstruct the civilian infrastructure damaged by NATO's bombing of Yugoslavia. [136966]

  Mr. Vaz
  The European Union has already responded quickly to support the new government in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) and repair the damage brought on by the Milosevic regime. At the Biarritz European Council on 13 October, the EU announced a 200 meuro emergency assistance package. This package will focus on support for the energy sector, food, health, education and heating. The EU has also allocated 22 meuro for the clearance of the Danube.

  European Security and Defence
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has received from the US Administration on the further development of(a) European Security and Defence Identity and (b) European Security and Defence Policy. [137201]

  Mr. Vaz
  President Clinton welcomed the outcome of the Feira European Council regarding the European Security and Defence Policy in a statement on 20 June 2000. Speaking at the NATO Informal Defence Ministerial at Birmingham on 10 October 2000, Defence Secretary Cohen said that the US agrees with the Helsinki Headline Goal not grudgingly, not with resignation, but with whole-hearted conviction.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if a method for involving non-EU allies into the process for the elaboration of the Headline and Capability Goals has been established; and if he will make a statement. [137200]

  Mr. Vaz
  Non-EU European allies and candidates for accession to the EU have been encouraged to make additional contributions to the Headline Goal target. The European Council at Feira welcomed initial declarations of intent to contribute. Defence Ministers of those countries will have the opportunity to announce offers to make forces available to EU-led crisis management operations in meetings with Defence Ministers of EU member states on 21 November. These offers will be additional to the Headline Goal, which is for EU member states alone to achieve.
  280W
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the scope of the(a) European Security and Defence Identity, (b) Common European Security and Defence Policy and (c) European Security and Defence Policy. [137073]

  Mr. Vaz
  The European Security and Defence Identity refers to the arrangements established within NATO for the Alliance to support European-led crisis management operations.

  The Common European Security and Defence Policy (also known as the European Security and Defence Policy) refers to the arrangements established within the EU for the EU to have the capacity to undertake conflict prevention and crisis management tasks. ESDP is being developed in close co-operation with NATO.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the(a) role and (b) composition is of the European Military Committee; and what representation it has within (a) NATO and (b) other EU bodies. [137109]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Nice European Council is likely to take decisions on establishing permanent political and military bodies including an EU Military Committee. The EU Military Committee will give military advice on questions relating to crisis management operations. It will be composed of Chiefs of Defence Staff of the member states. Day-to-day business will be carried out by national military representatives, who may be double hatted with military representatives at NATO. The Chairman of the Military Committee will attend the Political and Security Committee and meetings of the Council when decisions with defence implications are to be taken.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the progress made in setting up co-operation and co-ordination mechanisms involving non-EU NATO members in the ESDI/P framework. [137075]

  Mr. Vaz
  I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave on 25 October 2000,Official Report, column 148W.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if(a) ESDI and (b) ESDP actions will be subject to a veto by any NATO member state. [137074]

  Mr. Vaz
  All decisions on ESDI in NATO and on ESDP in the EU are taken by consensus. EU decisions are taken by EU member states only.

  European Common Foreign and Security Policy
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made in setting up a standing Political and Security Committee dealing with aspects of the Common Foreign and Security Policy. [137077]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Council of the European Union adopted a decision establishing an interim Political and Security Committee (PSC) on 14 February 2000. It met for the first time on 3 March 2000. The interim PSC meets on average twice weekly and can address the full range of Common Foreign and Security Policy issues. As a standing body it
  281W
  can meet at short notice if required. The Government expect the interim PSC to be formally established as a permanent body in the course of the Swedish Presidency of the European Union, January-June 2001.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his policy is on incorporating the post of EU high representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy into the European Commission. [137076]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Government believe that the EU's Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) should continue to be based on inter-governmental cooperation. The role of High Representative provides a valuable focus for the increasingly important role played CFSP. The Government would not support proposals to incorporate this role into the Commission.

  International Criminal Court
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has for proposing legislation to establish an international criminal court. [137107]

  Mr. Hain
  The Government will introduce legislation to enable ratification of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) as soon as the parliamentary timetable allows. The ICC Bill was published in draft on 25 August and a consultation process on the draft Bill has been completed.

  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his participation in the talks designed to create an International Criminal Court. [136984]

  Mr. Hain
  The UK has fully participated throughout the negotiations on the establishment of the International Criminal Court (ICC). The sixth session of the Preparatory Commission for the ICC begins in New York on 27 November and British officials will again be actively involved.

  Western Sahara
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the Government's policy is on the right to self-determination of the Saharawi people of Western Sahara as set out in the International Court of Justice Advisory Opinion of 16 October 1975; and if he will make a statement. [135927]

  Mr. Hain
  We recognise the right of the people of Western Sahara to self-determination over their own future and will continue to support international efforts to achieve a just and durable solution in the territory.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what response the Government have made to the Moroccan Government's statement that it will no longer support the UN Settlement Plan for Western Sahara, including a referendum; and if he will make a statement. [135928]
  282W
  Mr. Hain
  Our understanding is that Morocco remains committed to the UN Settlement Plan for Western Sahara, and to a referendum. The UN Secretary-General has said that the implementation of the plan has been held up for ten years because of differences between the two parties on its voter identification and appeals protocols.

  The Secretary-General's Personal Envoy, James Baker, was drafted in earlier this year to explore all options for an agreed and durable solution, including a political solution which could then be put to a referendum. Morocco's recently stated willingness in principle to consider a political means of breaking the impasse is a positive development. We will continue to give our full support to Mr. Baker's efforts to resolve this dispute.

  Arms Brokering
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what provisions are in place to ensure that arms exported from the UK are not brokered to a third country; and if he will make a statement. [137000]

  Mr. Hain
  The Government are continually seeking to strengthen further their monitoring of the end-use of defence exports to prevent diversion to third parties. The Government have already taken a number of steps to strengthen risk assessment at the licensing stage and to improve the sharing of information on end-users of concern with like-minded countries. For example, the UK regularly seeks additional details of proposed end-use and end-users, including through our overseas posts, in order better to assess particular export licence applications.

  It would be neither practical nor useful to monitor the end-use of all strategic goods exported from the UK over their lifetime with the end-user, particularly when we have already taken steps to satisfy ourselves of the end-user's reliability and integrity before issuing a licence. Post-export monitoring cannot in itself prevent equipment from being diverted or misused, although it may help to inform future licensing decisions. Such monitoring is extremely resource-intensive and generally requires a degree of technical expertise on the part of those involved.

  Nevertheless, the UK is prepared to undertake monitoring of equipment in the recipient country in certain circumstances where the Government believe that such monitoring would genuinely add value to its efforts to minimise the risk of diversion. Several examples of such post-export monitoring are contained in the Government's 1999 Annual Report on Strategic Export Controls, copies of which are in the Libraries of the House.

  At present the Government have powers to control only trafficking and brokering of defence equipment under the United Nations Act 1946 where this is necessary to implement a binding United Nations decision. However, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry announced on 28 September that the Government have decided to introduce a system of licensing for arms trafficking and brokering. This will go significantly further than the proposals on trafficking and brokering in the 1998 White Paper on Strategic Export Controls. Full details of the Government's proposals on trafficking and brokering will

  283W
  be set out when the Government announce their proposals for new export control legislation following conclusion of the White Paper review.

  Dog Breeds
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with German Ministers about their proposals to ban certain breeds of dog; and if he will make a statement. [136988]

  Mr. Vaz
  I have not discussed the matter with German Ministers, since such matters are an internal matter for the German authorities.

  I understand the German Government have proposed that such measures be considered for adoption as EU legislation. The European Commission doubt there is a legal basis for EU-wide legislation and it seems unlikely that any such proposals will progress. Our policy is that such domestic legislation should remain a matter for member states. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), has already stated that existing United Kingdom law is adequate for both present and future controls in this area.

  European Public Prosecutor
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his policy on proposals for a European Public Prosecutor. [135381]

  Mrs. Roche
  I have been asked to reply.

  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for West Suffolk, (Mr. Spring) on 1 November 2000, Official Report, column 529W.

  European Movement
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what account the EU has taken in making decisions to provide funding to the European Movement of the European Movement' s other sources of funding. [136255]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I have been asked to reply.

  It is within the remit of the Commission to decide the criteria for disbursing such grants.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Judges' Lodgings
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what the total cost was of judges' lodgings for each of the last three years; what was(a) the average cost and (b) the highest cost per night of occupancy of lodgings for each of the last three years; what plans he has to review the cost of judges' lodgings; what recent representations he has received from members of the judiciary concerning lodgings; and if he will make a statement. [134334]
  284W
  Jane Kennedy
  The total cost of running the judges' lodgings in each of the last three years was:

  £

  1997–98

  4,776,680

  1998–99

  5,232,957

  1999–2000

  4,785,683

  For completeness, the average and highest cost per night of occupancy of lodgings by the judge and his or her clerk, inclusive of travel between the lodgings and the court, is set out as follows on three bases:

  Total cost figures

  £

  Highest

  Average (mean)

  1997–98

  2,550

  967

  1998–99

  2,375

  919

  1999–2000

  2,030

  901

  Total cost of lodgings less, for freehold properties, the Treasury capital charge

  £

  Highest

  Average (mean)

  1997–98

  2,550

  918

  1998–99

  2,107

  838

  1999–2000

  2,030

  818

  Only those costs immediately attributable to judicial occupation

  £

  Highest

  Average (mean)

  1997–98

  815.27

  380.70

  1998–99

  646.81

  368.36

  1999–2000

  677.94

  357.34

  An internal review of judges' lodgings is taking place which will:
  review the current location of lodgings, bearing in mind their degree of use and the maximum acceptable travelling times to the court centres they serve;
  compare the value for money provided by lodgings (including past and future capital, running, incidental and opportunity costs) with alternative forms of accommodation providing appropriate standards of security, privacy and comfort; and
  make recommendations concerning the most cost-effective means of managing and staffing lodgings.

  The Lord Chancellor has already begun consultation with the judiciary on the review. When the Lord Chancellor makes his decisions, which will be as soon as possible, he will publish them along with the review.

  No recent representations have been received from members of the judiciary about lodgings.

  Judges
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many(a) High Court judges, (b) circuit judges, (c) recorders or assistant recorders, (d) district judges (including family division) and (e) deputy district judges (including family division),

  285W
  have been appointed in each of the last six years; and how many were (i) solicitors or former solicitors, (ii) women and (iii) people from ethnic minorities. [135127]

  Mr. Lock
  [holding answer 31 October 2000]: The first table gives the requested breakdown for appointments to each level of judge requested for the last three financial years, and for the principal categories from April 1 this year. Another table provides the figures which are readily available for appointments in the calendar years 1994, 1995 and 1996. A further table gives statistics for all professional judicial appointments through the main open competitions in 1999–2000, and shows that of those appointments, 47 per cent. were solicitors, 27 per cent. women and 4 per cent. from ethnic minorities.

  Appointments in the last three financial years

  Total

  Solicitors

  Women

  Ethnic minority

  1997–98

  High Court Judges

  9

  0

  0

  0

  Circuit Judges1

  34

  3

  6

  0

  Assistant Recorders2

  93

  12

  20

  4

  District Judges1,3

  37

  36

  8

  1

  Deputy District Judges3

  63

  57

  20

  2

  1998–99

  High Court Judges

  7

  0

  0

  0

  Circuit Judges1

  15

  1

  2

  1

  Assistant Recorders

  150

  10

  22

  4

  District Judges1,3

  43

  39

  8

  3

  Deputy District Judges3

  100

  86

  32

  1

  1999–2000

  High Court Judges

  8

  0

  3

  0

  Circuit Judges1

  31

  8

  3

  0

  Assistant Recorders2

  113

  9

  21

  6

  District Judges1,3

  27

  24

  10

  1

  Deputy District Judges3

  125

  102

  39

  2

  1 The figures for Circuit Judges and District Judges are for those who were approved for appointment, although they did not take up their appointments until the following year

  2 Appointments in the full competition completed in the year concerned (which usually spans two financial years) rather than the appointments made in that financial year which would be from parts of two competitions

  3 Including Family Division

  Appointments 1 April 2000 to 31 October 2000

  Total

  Solicitors

  Women

  Ethnic minority

  High Court Judges

  11

  1

  0

  0

  Circuit Judges1

  8

  6

  2

  0

  District Judges1,2

  3

  2

  0

  0

  1 Candidates who were interviewed in the competitions in 1999–2000, were originally on the reserve list, and were subsequently appointed. The total figures for those who have taken up post since 1 April 2000 are, therefore, the figures in table 1 plus those in table 2.

  2 Including Family Division

  Appointments in the calendar years shown

  Total

  Solicitors

  Women

  Ethnic minority

  1994

  High Court Judges

  18

  0

  1

  0

  Circuit Judges

  35

  4

  2

  0

  Assistant Recorders2

  50

  13

  6

  3

  District Judges2,3

  31

  28

  10

  0

  Deputy District Judges2,3

  20

  17

  4

  0

  286W

  Appointments in the calendar years shown

  Total

  Solicitors

  Women

  Ethnic minority

  1995

  High Court Judges

  12

  0

  1

  0

  Circuit Judges

  48

  16

  4

  1

  Assistant Recorders2

  58

  9

  9

  1

  District Judges2,3

  31

  30

  4

  0

  Deputy District Judges2,3

  63

  56

  16

  4

  1996

  High Court Judges

  9

  0

  0

  0

  Circuit Judges

  45

  5

  1

  0

  Assistant Recorders2

  98

  16

  17

  2

  District Judges2,3

  24

  22

  3

  0

  Deputy District Judges2,3

  7

  6

  0

  0

  1 The figures of six High Court Judges appointed in 1994 which was given in answer to a written question on 9 February 1999 was incorrect

  2 These figures are those that are the most readily available from existing records but may not be wholly comprehensive because of changes in recording procedures

  3 Including Family Division

  Total appointments through the main judicial appointments competitions in 1999–2000

  Appointments

  Percentage

  Total

  453

  100

  Men

  331

  73.1

  Women1

  122

  26.9

  White

  407

  89.8

  Ethnic minority

  19

  4.2

  Not known

  27

  6

  Barrister (not QC)

  172

  38

  Solicitor (not QC)

  211

  46.6

  QC

  27

  6

  Other

  43

  9.5

  1 If appointments to the Appeals Service are included, the proportion of women appointed in 1999–2000 was 33.4 per cent.

CABINET OFFICE

  British-Irish Council
  Mr. Geraint Davies
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what progress has been made during the summer in relation to the British-Irish Council. [135617]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  Over the summer, the participants in the British-Irish Council have been taking forward in a number of the areas identified as priorities at the first BIC summit meeting last December. The second BIC summit was due to take place in Dublin on Wednesday 18 October, hosted by the Irish Government. Regrettably, the summit had to be postponed following the death of the right hon. Donald Dewar MP MSP, First Minister of the Scottish Executive. Action is in hand to identify a new date for the summit.

  Civil Servants (Stakeholder Pensions)
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what plans she has to offer stakeholder pensions to(a) new civil servants, (b) existing civil servants and (c) staff of executive agencies. [134376]
  287W
  Mr. Stringer
  As required under the legislation, from October 2001, designated stakeholder pension arrangements will be made available to all civil servants who cannot be covered by the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme (PCSPS). Civil service stakeholder pension arrangements will also be made available to civil servants who are covered by the PCSPS but who earn less than £30,000 a year, and who wish to top up their PCSPS benefits.

  These arrangements will he for (a) new civil servants, (b) existing civil servants, and (c) staff of executive agencies while they are employed within the civil service.

  Departmental Websites
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what assessment she has made of the advantages and disadvantages of establishing chat rooms on departmental websites. [136925]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  My Department has issued guidelines for Government websites. In paragraph 3.7 of this document there is a summary of the advantages and disadvantages of chat rooms. These guidelines are available on the web at http://www.citu.gov.uk/iagc/guidelines/websites/websites.htm.

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.

Higher Education: Participation
Lord Paul Lord Paul asked Her Majesty's Government:
In the light of recently published key performance indicators for universities, whether their policies have been effective in widening participation and achieving greater social inclusion.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, performance indicators for higher education show a history of under-participation by some parts of the community. This must change. We have made widening participation central to our vision for the future of higher education. To this end, we recently announced the Excellence Challenge for a £150 programme to enable schools, colleges and universities to encourage applications from disadvantaged young people who have the potential for higher education. We have also put in place a substantial package of support for mature and part-time students.
Lord Paul: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that very encouraging reply. I declare my interest here as Chancellor of Wolverhampton University, which has an excellent record of widening participation and has exceeded all the bench-marks. Universities that provide opportunities for disadvantaged groups have experienced an increase in withdrawals, and students are suffering financial hardship. With the abolition of maintenance grants and the introduction of fees, many students, especially those from the minority communities, now combine full-time study with near full-time work, while others experience the burden of debts. Can my noble friend say whether these policies are consistent with the desire to provide equality of opportunity for all the benefits to be derived from higher education?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am well aware that Wolverhampton University has an excellent record of widening participation in this respect. Indeed, I congratulate the university on that fact. However, if we take universities as a whole, there has not actually been a deterrent effect: there has been an increase of over 6,000 students—nearly 2 per cent—being accepted for entry this autumn, as compared with last year. As far as concerns the effect of fees, my noble friend will be aware that we raised
1526
the threshold for relief from fees so that, now, 50 per cent of all students, including, I believe, all of those to whom he refers, do not pay fees.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord will know that there has been a reduction in applications to Cambridge University this year, which may well be as a result of the remarks made last year by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In response to a Question on 7th June of this year, the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, said that the Government had no intention whatever of using funding in order to interfere with admissions to university. Therefore, does the noble Lord agree that expecting universities to set targets for their admissions in return for funding is in fact illegal under the higher education legislation of 1992?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, on the noble Baroness's first point, I can say that there has been a reduction in admissions to Cambridge. However, there has been an increase in admissions to Oxford, which rather diminishes the value of the noble Baroness's point about the Chancellor of the Exchequer. As to the issue of interference in selection processes, there has never been—indeed, there is no intention—to interfere with the selection process. The Excellence Challenge programme has more than half of its expenditure in schools and FE colleges. It is designed to increase applications rather than to influence the selection procedure. Universities are happy with that and are content to collaborate with the system, because it is clearly to their advantage.
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, we on these Benches should like to remark that inverted snobbery can be just as destructive as old-fashioned snobbery. The question here is more about Robbins' vision of helping to transmit a common culture in universities. In their possible review of these key performance indicators, which are not working as well as they should be, would the Government care to look at that original vision rather than at education as conveying a series of mechanical skills?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I certainly agree with the right reverend Prelate about what Robbins said. Indeed, when I considered the way in which this Government are approaching the issue, I was reminded of Robbins' original words, which assumed, as an axiom, that courses of higher education should be available for all those who were qualified by ability and attainment to pursue them and who wished to do so. I believe that that expresses better than government these days the fundamental principle behind our approach to universities and to widening access to them.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the two main deterrents to participation in higher education by those from less advantaged backgrounds are cost and lack of appropriate qualifications? Is he also aware that only

1527
800 students from social class five acquired 21 A-level points last year? If the Government are really anxious to encourage participation by such people, is it really sensible for them, first, not to extend the right to free tuition up to A-level equivalent qualifications for 19 to 24 year-olds, instead of just up to the age of 19; and, secondly, is it right to exclude part-time students from most of the schemes aimed at helping mature students meet the cost of studying? Finally, are both sides of the DfEE really working to the same agenda?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I thought that I had made it clear that a very substantial part of the Excellence Challenge programme is devoted to the exact aims that the noble Baroness wishes to promote. Indeed, we entirely agree with her. As for part-time students, when we introduced tuition fees in the first instance the House will recall that part of the deal was that there would be substantial additional funding for mature students and for part-time students. Both groups have been made eligible for loans as part of that deal.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that in the past 10 years universities have dramatically increased the participation in higher education of mature and part-time students, as well as women and ethnic minorities? In declaring an interest as the chief executive of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, I draw to the attention of the House the concordat recently signed between representative bodies of universities and schools. Does the Minister agree that one of the key issues is raising the aspirations of state educated children who currently do not apply?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I entirely agree with my noble friend that one of the most important things—in fact, probably the most important thing—is to raise the aspirations of those in state schools who do not currently apply. I congratulate the noble Baroness and her organisation on the concordat. But we must get away from the idea that the Government are trying to impose targets. What we are doing is indicating bench marks against which the universities can judge their success in attracting applications from a wider range of potential students.

Barristers' Fees
2.44 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether any drain of talent from family and criminal work at the Bar is likely following the Lord Chancellor's proposals for criminal and family legal aid.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, the noble Lord asks a timely and important
1528
Question on my current proposals for barristers' fees in two distinct categories of publicly funded work, family and criminal. As a distinguished solicitor, the noble Lord shows a commendable concern for barristers as distinct from the solicitor profession. My proposals have been the subject of extensive consultation from 4th July to 12th October. I shall be provided with a final analysis of responses this Friday. These I shall consider carefully, along with all the representations made to me. I would be concerned if I concluded that any significant drain of talent from these areas of practice was likely due to a new fee regime. However, because of current market circumstances, I am not presently persuaded that such a likelihood exists.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for that reply. Is he aware that solicitors have shown a commendable concern, equal to that of barristers, for the efficacy of the Legal Aid Fund? In view of the fact that the noble and learned Lord is to meet them either separately or together—preferably together—will he ensure that he represents fully in the discussions their vested interest in making the legal aid scheme work? Will he do what he can to bring together the viewpoint of the Law Society and of the Bar Council in that regard? It is important that they speak with a united voice.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I believe that my noble friend asks whether I retain an open mind on the proposals and will be flexible in my approach. I certainly shall be. I aim for a fair playing field between solicitors and barristers. I shall meet the chairman of the Bar Council and the president of the Law Society at the end of November. I shall consider the representations they make with an open mind and will come to my decisions before Christmas.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, will my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor confirm—I am sure he will— that after prolonged negotiation between his department and the Bar Council there was agreed in 1997 and thereafter put into effect an agreed mechanism for remunerating criminal legal aid? Will he also confirm that this provided a complex formula for assessing fees and that there has been no uplift since 1997 despite the RPI increasing by over 10 per cent? My question is therefore this: is the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor seeking to discredit this agreed mechanism by imposing punitive deductions in regard to the scale already agreed? If so, does he accept that there is truth in the old adage that if you pay peanuts you will ultimately get monkeys?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the facts are that my proposals are confined to cases up to 10 days in length and they concern what we call "graduated fees". The noble and learned Lord is right that in criminal work graduated fees have applied to defence barristers for almost four years. These are acceptable as reasonable by the Bar. A graduated fee scheme sets

1529
fixed fees for different items of a case, including preparation and hearings, in place of the bad old system of brief fees, daily refreshers and ex post facto assessments of reasonableness.
My proposals are designed to remove an inequity under which prosecution counsel were paid much less than defence counsel to the prejudice of the CPS when engaging prosecuting counsel. The proposal therefore is that criminal graduated fees should be reduced by 10 per cent overall to pay for an increase in prosecution fees to bring about equality and to introduce a graduated fee system for prosecution counsel. The Bar should benefit overall and therefore I do not accept my noble and learned friend's strictures.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, bearing in mind the judicially reviewable duties of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor under Section 25(3) of the Access to Justice Act, noting that one of these duties is the obligation to secure family law services by a sufficient number of competent practitioners and taking into account the fact that the circumstances for a cost uplift are extremely constrained, how can the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor fulfil this duty when the rates of pay for a senior junior counsel will be the same as for a second six month pupil?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the criteria that I must apply are set out in different statutes. Of course, with the liability to judicial review I shall express myself with great care. But in both areas—family and crime—I shall want to ensure that a sufficient number of competent barristers are available to carry out the publicly funded work in question; and that will be achieved.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord admit that his plans involve a considerable reduction in legal aid fees paid to criminal law barristers and even more so to family law barristers? Will he accept that it is likely to be a serious deterrent to would-be young barristers who, among other things, know that they will leave university owing debts of up to £20,000?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, no, I do not accept that. I believe that all professionals must recognise that they are affected by market circumstances, the same as the rest of us. Those affecting the Bar are that the number of people entering the profession increased by 3 per cent last year and the amount of family work has fallen over the past two years so that there is increasing competition between a larger number of barristers for a similar amount of work. There is also evidence that some criminal law barristers work less than full time. But I am not presently persuaded that there is likely to be a lack of supply of competent barristers in
1530
either area to carry out publicly funded work to the extent required at remuneration the public would regard as fair.

Rail Travel: Telephone Information
2.52 p.m.
Lord McCarthy Lord McCarthy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why local railway stations no longer operate telephone advisory services which provide the public with up-to-date information concerning such matters as train cancellations, late arrivals and the state of station facilities.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Macdonald of Tradeston): My Lords, in the past, local stations were not formally equipped to operate as telephone advisory services although some did provide information to callers upon request. Under British Rail, up-to-date information was available from 43 relatively small call centres all with different opening hours and telephone numbers. The creation of the National Rail Enquiry Scheme (NRES) outsourced call handling to modern, large call centres which have a single 24-hour telephone number which I am assured is deemed memorable. Noble Lords may judge for themselves: it is 08457 484950.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, does the Minister know that you can never get an answer when you ring that number? I do not know whether the noble Lord is an inveterate rail, car or executive jet man. However, in the days before privatisation if you woke up and could not see your before your face because of fog, or if there were leaves on the line, or if the IRA was "up to it" in the waiting rooms, you could ring the local railway station. I have rung hundreds. They were always manned. That disappeared on privatisation.
We now have the invisible National Rail Enquiry Scheme. When one occasionally manages to get through to the number, one is given the local customer services telephone number, but that too is often unobtainable. If one does get through, those individuals do not know what is happening in one's local railway station or the station to which one wishes to travel. If one presses the point, they ask, "Have you tried Ceefax?" The other day I was told, "You can always have a go at the Net". More often they say, "If I were you, I would try contacting your local railway station or local radio".
I do not understand why we got rid of those telephone services, or why we cannot have them back. Until we do so, the Government will be under continuing criticism because people do not know where they are going.
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, my noble friend says that one can never get through. Knowing where he comes from, yesterday I telephoned NRES to ask about his local station, Oxford. I got through twice on two calls averaging one and a half minutes.
In the years when the noble Lord worked for British Rail, about 60 per cent of callers found that the telephone lines were engaged or that their calls were unanswered; 90 per cent of calls are now answered.

Sierra Leone
2.55 p.m.
Earl Attlee Earl Attlee asked Her Majesty's Government:
What are the foreign policy objectives behind the further deployment of troops to Sierra Leone.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, our intervention in June stabilised the security situation and helped prevent a descent into chaos. But many people in Sierra Leone still live under the threat of a brutal rebel minority. We shall not abandon Sierra Leone. We are determined to stand by its people, and to provide substantial practical support for their government and the United Nations. Our objectives remain to assist the Government of Sierra Leone and UNAMSIL to repel the rebels and restore the peace process.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply and remind the House that I have a very peripheral interest. Our troops are doing a fabulous job all round the world. Is the Minister satisfied with the manning of UNAMSIL? Can the noble Baroness say why we are not within UNAMSIL rather than just alongside it?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for the compliments that he pays our troops, and join with him. UNAMSIL has been constructive. Noble Lords will know that we were not identified as being a country whose troops would participate in that regard. But we have a strong interest in Sierra Leone historically and now. We have great friendship with the people of Sierra Leone and would not stand idly by when assistance could be given. The noble Earl knows from Questions to and Answers from this Dispatch Box that our support has been sound in relation to training and other matters and is greatly valued by the people and the democratic government of Sierra Leone.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, perhaps we may congratulate Brigadier David Richards on the well-deserved honour of a CBE which was announced on Friday. It is a tribute not only to Brigadier Richards but to the wonderful way in which our forces in Sierra Leone have carried out their responsibilities.
1532
What is the target strength of the Sierra Leone army which we are assisting to train? When does the Minister estimate that the Sierra Leone army will begin to restore government control over the vast majority of the territorial area of Sierra Leone which is occupied by the rebel forces? Can the noble Baroness say anything about the talks, announced for later this week, between the Government and the RUF; and whether it is still possible for RUF personnel to come back into the political process?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I join with the complimentary sentiments expressed by the noble Lord in relation to the recent honour.
I cannot help the noble Lord in terms of the target strength of the army itself. But we have already trained 3,000 troops. It is hoped that the figure will be greater.
The talks between the Government and the RUF are very important indeed. But it will be a matter for them to discuss how they can fashion a way forward. I cannot give the noble Lord any guarantees about the outcomes of those talks. I hope he will understand that it would be quite precipitous and wrong of me to attempt to do so.
Baroness Sharpies: My Lords, what is the Government's exit strategy with regard to Sierra Leone?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the Government have given a clear commitment to the people of Sierra Leone in relation to training. There has not been drift, as some have sought to suggest in the past. Our exit strategy is to assist the people of Sierra Leone to have a clear, strong army which is well trained and able to meet the needs of Sierra Leone in the future. I cannot give the noble Baroness a specific date but it will be done as soon as is reasonably practicable. I reassure the noble Baroness that our troops and this Government are extremely efficient and do indeed comply with our commitments.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, was the Minister told why other countries that originally came to the rescue of Sierra Leone and sent forces, such as India, withdrew?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, they have not yet withdrawn, but the commitments made by some other countries were time-limited. We ask all our partners to join together in support of the democratic government of Sierra Leone. The people of Sierra Leone need our support. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State said clearly how moved he was when he visited Sierra Leone by the plight of hundreds of thousands of people whose limbs had been amputated. That is an appalling situation and we hope that the international community will continue to support Sierra Leone and its democratic government.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, reverting to the Question asked by my noble friend Lord Attlee, I am sure that the Minister agrees that the key to ending

1533
the atrocities and defeating the RUF in Sierra Leone is the capture of the diamond fields that finance the rebels. Will she explain a little more clearly which force will do that? Will it be the retrained Sierra Leone army or armies, UNAMSIL, the British Army troops or the seaborne rapid deployment force that is now also involved? How will all those groups work together? Our troops deserve a bit more clarity about how the co-ordinated effort will be achieved to defeat those committing atrocities in Sierra Leone.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, all the efforts that the noble Lord has identified need to be employed to help in that task. The British troops have not been and will not be directly involved other than in the ways that have already been explained. Those who want to prolong the difficulties should be dissuaded from so doing. Co-ordination is under the control of UNAMSIL, which is doing well. We should not carp about its efforts. Instead, we should encourage it to do far better.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, we on these Benches strongly support the Government's action in Sierra Leone, in particular the recent appointment of Brigadier Alastair Duncan as Chief of Staff. Are those actions part of a wider strategy, given that we understand that the United States is committed to training Nigerian peacekeepers? Does the Minister believe that there are dangers beyond Sierra Leone to the order and safety of West African states?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, as usual, the noble Baroness has rightly highlighted a difficulty. The issues in West Africa are very complex and can be inter-dependent. It will be very important to re-establish security in a democratic Sierra Leone. That is bound to have a beneficial influence on the surrounding countries. Our strategy must be to look for security in that region. Our international partners are determined, as are we, to do everything reasonably possible to support democracy and good governance in the region.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, this is not intended as a critical question, but the Minister has referred to our policy and strategy. We know that the situation is not satisfactory. Are we to go it alone from now on?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, certainly not. UNAMSIL is playing a crucial active role. It is very important that the United Nations is seen to succeed in Sierra Leone, because that will send a message to the rest of the world about the unity of the international community and its effectiveness in facing such perilous situations. We do not stand alone. We should rejoice that we have so many good partners internationally who are standing with us.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, so often the presence of British and international forces overshadows what is happening among the regional armed forces. Will the Minister confirm that our Government are still supporting some of the regional forces in Africa, which will be well able to cope with the situation when the time comes?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I am more than delighted to reaffirm that. The House rightly concentrates on what the British and Europeans are doing, but we should never underestimate the commitment given by other partners in Africa, Asia and elsewhere. Their efforts are as worthy of our support and praise as our own.
Lord Roper: My Lords, I support what has been said about the contribution of African forces and I commend the appointment of a distinguished Kenyan officer as the force commander. Will the Minister say something about the deployment of the headquarters elements of British forces to support UNAMSIL, which the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, referred to in her Statement about a month ago?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, on 10th October my noble friend Lady Symons made it clear that under our memorandum of understanding with the United Nations we are ready to deploy a rapid reaction force in support of UN peacekeeping, including in Sierra Leone. The deployment of an amphibious ready group to Sierra Leone this month is an early demonstration of the seriousness of that commitment. The group comprises elements of our joint rapid reaction forces. It will be headed by HMS "Ocean" and will include troops from 42 Commando Group Royal Marines, as well as the Royal Fleet Auxiliaries "Argus", "Sir Bedivere", "Brambleleaf" and "Fort Austin". It is not a new commitment, as the noble Lord rightly said, but we are happy to take this opportunity to give support.

Business
3.6 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m., my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement being made in another place on the Pre-Budget Report.

Parliament Acts (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to confirm the Parliament Act 1949 and other Acts; and to amend the Parliament Act 1911. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Donaldson of Lymington.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill
3.7 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 2 [Aims of the Service]:
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bassam of Brighton)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bassam of Brighton) moved Amendment No. 1:
Clause 2, page 2, line 3, after first ("local") insert ("probation").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in accordance with the custom of the House, the Government have tabled amendments to reflect the amendment passed on Report last week that changes the name of local boards to local probation boards. All the consequential amendments are identical and give effect to that substantive change in the rest of the Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I thank the Minister for doing the work for me. He has tabled a formidable list of amendments consequential on the one passed on Report. I am grateful for that.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, we on these Benches also welcome the amendments.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendments Nos. 2 to 22:

Clause 2, page 2, line 3, after second ("local") insert ("probation").

Clause 4, page 2, line 33, after ("local") insert ("probation").

Page 2, line 35, after ("local") insert ("probation").

Page 2, line 37, after ("local") insert ("probation").

Page 2, line 39, after ("local") insert ("probation").

Clause 5, page 3, line 5, after ("local") insert ("probation").

Page 3, line 16, after ("local") insert ("probation").

Page 3, line 30, after ("local") insert ("probation").

Page 3, line 33, after ("local") insert ("probation").

Page 3, line 34, after ("local") insert ("probation").

Page 3, line 35, after ("local") insert ("probation").

Page 3, line 37, after ("local") insert ("probation").

Page 3, line 38, after ("local") insert ("probation").

Page 3, line 42, after ("local") insert ("probation").

Page 3, line 45, after ("local") insert ("probation").

Clause 7, page 4, line 22, after ("local") insert ("probation").

Clause 8, page 4, line 42, after ("local") insert ("probation").

Page 5, line 2, after ("local") insert ("probation").

Page 5, line 7, after ("local") insert ("probation").

Clause 10, page 5, line 24, after ("local") insert ("probation").

Clause 18, page 9, line 1, after ("local") insert ("probation").

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 20 [Transfer of staff]:
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 23:
Clause 20, page 9, line 30, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, again, in accordance with the custom of the House, the Government have tabled amendments consequential on the change made to the arrangements for the appointment of chief
1536
officers. However, it would be proper for me to advise the House that in this instance the changes made on Report are not acceptable to the Government. They affect an issue of principle and purpose behind the Bill. For that reason, we shall of course seek to overturn this Government in another place. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, we look forward to the noble Lord seeking to overturn the Government in another place.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendments Nos. 24 to 27:

Page 9, line 35, leave out ("or persons so employed").

Page 9, line 37, leave out ("or person so employed").

Page 9, line 40, leave out ("and chief probation officers").

Page 9, line 40, leave out ("or appointed").

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 22 [Effect of transfer of chief probation officers]:
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 28:
Leave out Clause 22.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 29:
After Clause 32, insert the following new clause—

Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill

  REINSTATEMENT OF DISQUALIFICATION ORDER
  (" .—(1) This section applies where the Tribunal has directed under the provisions of section 31 that a disqualification order is to cease to have effect in respect of an individual.
  (2) A relevant person may at any time apply to the Tribunal for the reinstatement of the disqualification order.
  (3) An application under subsection (2) may only be granted if the Tribunal is satisfied, having regard to all the circumstances, that it is likely that the individual will commit a further offence against a child.
  (4) Where the Tribunal reinstates an order under this section, it must state its reasons for doing so and cause those reasons to be included in the record of the proceedings.
  (5) In this section, "relevant person" means—

  (a) the Secretary of State;

  (b) a superintendent of police; or

  (c) the director of social services of a local authority.").

  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I shall be very brief. As noble Lords will have noticed, another amendment has been tabled covering the same area of concern I have had throughout the passage of the Bill. Therefore, I shall not move Amendment No. 29. I am deeply grateful to the Government for their Amendment No. 30. I shall now sit down and wait for the noble Lord to introduce that amendment.
  [Amendment No. 29 not moved.]
  The Attorney-General (Lord Williams of Mostyn)The Attorney-General (Lord Williams of Mostyn) moved Amendment No. 30:
  After Clause 33, insert the following new clause—

  RESTORATION OF DISQUALIFICATION ORDER
  (" .—(1) If it appears to a chief officer of police or a director of social services of a local authority that the conditions set out in subsection (2) are satisfied in the case of an individual, the chief officer or (as the case may be) the director may apply to the High Court for an order under this section to be made in respect of the individual.
  (2) The conditions are that—

  (a) a disqualification order made in respect of the individual is no longer in force, and

  (b) the individual has acted in such a way (whether before or after the order ceased to be in force) as to give reasonable cause to believe that an order under this section is necessary to protect children in general, or any children in particular, from serious harm from him.

  (3) An application under this section may be made at any time after the disqualification order ceased to be in force.
  (4) If the High Court is satisfied that the conditions set out in subsection (2) are satisfied, it must order that the disqualification order is to be restored; otherwise it must dismiss the application.
  (5) Where an order is made under this section, section 33 has effect with the following modifications—

  (a) in subsection (3), the reference to the individual being under the age of 18 when he committed the offence against a child is to be read as a reference to his being under that age when the order under this section was made,

  (b) in subsections (3)(a) and (4)(a), references to the relevant date are to be read as references to the date on which the order under this section was made.

  (c) in subsection (5)(a), the reference to the individual's circumstances changing since the disqualification order was made is to be read as a reference to his circumstances changing since the order under this section was made.

  (6) For the purposes of this section a disqualification order is no longer in force if a direction under section 32(3) has been given in respect of it and it is not restored by virtue of an order under this section.").
  The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, originally this amendment was grouped with Amendments Nos. 29 and 132. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, is quite right. I listened to the way in which she deployed her argument on the point of—I believe that I paraphrase it accurately—the restoration of a disqualification to a previously disqualified individual, and, if I may say so, I believe that her argument had substantial merit.
  We gave the matter a good deal of thought. The government amendment, which is an alternative, seeks to provide a power for the High Court to disqualify a previously disqualified person or restore to the list a previously listed person acting on the application of a chief officer of police or a director of social services of a local authority. The High Court would have the power to reinstate the disqualification order or restore the person to the list if satisfied that such a course of action was necessary for the purpose of protecting a child or children. The reinstated order would trigger all the consequences following from the original disqualification.
  Therefore, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness. I believe that she and I both had the same purpose in mind Accordingly, I beg to move, and commend, Amendment No. 30.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 31:
  After Clause 37, insert the following new clause—
  ("Indecent conduct towards children

  EXTENSION OF OFFENCE: CONDUCT TOWARDS 14 AND 15 YEAR OLDS
  . In section 1(l) of the Indecency with Children Act 1960 (indecent conduct towards young child), for "fourteen" there is substituted "sixteen".").
  The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, we are in similar territory with this amendment. I believe that if I continue to agree with the noble Baroness we shall both be dismissed immediately from our respective Front Benches. However, many of the points raised in our earlier debates were extremely serious. Where we were able to meet the points, I hope that it will be seen that we tried to do so.
  This amendment is grouped with Amendments Nos. 32 and 57. At present it is an offence under Section 1 of the Indecency with Children Act 1960 for a person to commit an act of gross indecency with a child under the age of 14 or to incite a child under that age to such an act. The first new clause would raise the age of a child against whom the offence could be committed from 13 to 15. In Northern Ireland a similar offence of indecent conduct towards a child is to be found in Section 22 of the Children and Young Persons Act (Northern Ireland) 1968 and applies to children under the age of 14. The second new clause would raise the age of a child against whom the offence could be committed in Northern Ireland from 13 to 16.
  I hope that the noble Baroness will again be able to say that this concession is in accord with the underlying theme of what she urged upon us on the earlier occasions. I beg to move.
  Baroness Blatch: My Lords, if I carry on like this, I believe that I shall be in danger of being drummed out of the Brownies. That will come to an end temporarily, but I am deeply grateful to the Minister because I know that he has worked very hard to press the arguments in another place.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 32:
  After Clause 37, insert the following new clause—

  EXTENSION OF CORRESPONDING NORTHERN IRELAND OFFENCE: CONDUCT TOWARDS 14 TO 16 YEAR OLDS. 1960 C. 33.
  (" .—(1) The Children and Young Persons Act (Northern Ireland) 1968 is amended as follows.
  (2) At the end of section 22 (indecent conduct towards child) there is inserted—
  "(2) In this section "child" means a person under the age of seventeen."
  (3) In section 180(1) (interpretation), in the definition of "child"—

  (a) after ""child"" there is inserted ", except when used in section 22,", and

  (b) at the end there is inserted "and, when used in section 22, has the meaning assigned to it by that section".").

  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  3.15 p.m.
  Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 33:
  After Clause 38, insert the following new clause—

  USE OF ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS TO INCITE AN ACT OF GROSS INDECENCY WITH A CHILD
  (" . After section 1 of the Indecency with Children Act 1960 (indecent conduct towards young child), there shall be inserted—
  "Use of electronic communication to incite acts of gross indecency with children.
  1A.—(1) In this section, except where otherwise stated, "child" means a person under the age of sixteen years.
  (2) Any person who uses electronic communication for the purposes of—

  (a) engaging in an act of gross indecency with a person he knows or has reason to believe is a child;

  (b) inciting a person he knows or has reason to believe is a child to meet with him with the intent of engaging in an act of gross indecency; or

  (c) soliciting a person he knows or has reason to believe is a child to engage in any act that would constitute an offence under section 1 or under section 2(a) or 2(b),

  is guilty of an offence and shall be liable—

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

  (ii) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both.

  (3) References in the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 to the offences mentioned in the first Schedule to that Act shall include offences under this section.
  (4) Offences under this section shall be deemed to be offences against the person for the purpose of section 3 of the Visiting Forces Act 1952 (which restricts the trial by the United Kingdom courts of offenders connected with visiting forces).
  (5) In this section, "electronic communication" has the meaning given by section 15 of the Electronic Communications Act 2000."").
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I hope that the noble and learned Lord will not take it amiss that, although I am deeply grateful for all that has been done so far with regard to this Bill, I remain concerned about the use of new technology for the purposes of procuring the sexual services of young children.
  Amendment No. 33 is coupled with Amendment No. 34. In essence, the Government have said consistently that we do not need Amendment No. 33 because the issue is already covered by existing legislation. They say that the language in the amendment is flawed. My response to that is that I do not believe that existing legislation is adequate and that I have consistently sought to improve the language. Indeed, I have included further improvements in the version being considered today.
  In my experience, the substantive issue with which this amendment deals is the on-line enticement of children by adults, usually referred to as "paedophiles"—however, that is not a legislative term—in order to exploit children in on-line conversations, in sending them degrading e-mails or pornographic pictures and, ultimately, to commit sexual offences with those children off-line.
  I accept that the existing law is adequate to deal with the off-line element of the sexual offences. Indeed, I have referred previously to a case on 24th October in which a man called Patrick Green was sentenced to five years' imprisonment for sexual offences with a girl whom he met via the Internet. It was the off-line element of his ghastly crime that was responsible for his conviction. However, my contention is that, with the advent of the Internet and other electronic communications systems, the potential for adults to exploit children has increased. The way that they can groom, manipulate and lure children is of a different nature to the off-line process, and that is not covered by existing law.
  The evidence which I gave on Report showed that the police were not using the Indecency with Children Act 1960, which the Government claimed they could use in recent cases involving on-line exploitation. That even applies to children under the age of 14. Moreover, I should be intrigued to know how a paedophile acting alone could be charged with the offence in the 1960 Act of conspiracy to indecently assault a child. Surely conspiracy requires more than one person.
  The noble and learned Lord also quoted in defence of the Government's line the paper by the sub-group of the Internet Crime Forum. I know that that group has been meeting for over a year and I am disappointed by its lack of urgency in looking at the issue. Moreover, while its interim paper, which the noble and learned Lord has been kind enough to send to me, contains useful advice and suggestions, there is no evidence that it has considered at any length the question of legislation and the need for new offences. In fact, there is a cursory dismissal of the need for legislation. The group says that present off-line legislation can be interpreted to on-line activities. However, the police and the judiciary do not appear to take that view. In any event, action in a court could be challenged as the existing legislation has not been drafted with on-line technology in mind.
  I note that in the United States there is an offence of enticement of children by adults. They have much more experience there of cases where the Internet has been used by adults to contact innocent children with a view to grooming them for sexual purposes. I want to mention one example. A 22 year-old and Second Air Force lieutenant was arrested on Friday 13th October this year by the Colorado Internet Crimes Against Children task force when he contacted an undercover officer, who posed as a 13 year-old girl, in the parking lot of a local shopping centre. He had arranged a meeting via the Internet with someone he believed to be a 13 year-old girl. The purpose of the meeting was to go to the man's residence in Colorado Springs and to have

  1541
  various types of sexual contact with the girl, who was actually an undercover police detective from Colorado Springs police department.
  The man had first initiated contact via the Internet two days before the meeting. He was booked into the E1 Paso county gaol on charges of enticement of a child and of criminally attempting to sexually assault a child. If that kind of contact had been initiated in the United Kingdom, I believe that he could not have been charged. Perhaps an "Internet crimes against children task force" would be an interesting idea here.
  I have no reason to believe that the United Kingdom will not see a major growth in such cases. Surely the Government recognise that it is important to be prepared. Part of that preparation is having an adequate awareness programme to educate and warn parents and children who use the Internet. The charity, Childline International, has made an excellent start on that with its website. It efforts are being made on the equivalent of a shoestring. We should all be indebted to it for that work.
  In this House we must consider whether awareness efforts need to be backed by changes to legislation. My contention is that they do. Perhaps I may briefly summarise how this amendment differs from that which I brought forward on Report.
  First, I have changed the definition of "electronic communication" and used that which recently became law in the Electronic Communications Act 2000. That is the Government's own definition so I hope that they will accept it. For the benefit of those noble Lords who do not have the Act to hand, the definition is:
  "'Electronic communication' means a communication transmitted (whether from one person to another, from one device to another or from a person to a device or vice versa) … by means of a telecommunication system (within the meaning of the Telecommunications Act 1984); or … by other means but while in an electronic form".
  Secondly, I have dropped the concept of sexually explicit discussion with a child. The Minister persuaded me to accept that it did raise problems of how to exclude genuine on-line counselling by reputable organisations.
  Thirdly, I have included a new offence of inciting a child or a person believed to be a child to arrange to meet for the purposes of engaging in an act of gross indecency. This would catch the kind of circumstances where Patrick Green spent months persuading a girl from Cumbria to meet him. No off-line sexual offence took place, but his intent was clear. The only charge brought in that case of abduction was not pressed in court.
  I feel so strongly that it is better that we catch and charge people before they commit sexual offences off-line rather than waiting until they do abuse a child. I hope that the Minister will agree to this amendment, which calls urgently for legislation.
  My Amendment No. 34, which has been previously discussed, broadens the spectrum of acts of abuse and threats of abuse and raises the penalty for such acts. The amendment seeks to protect boys as well as girls, and would cover all sexually explicit conduct, not just
  1542
  sexual intercourse, as is the case under the Sexual Offences Act 1956. The amendment updates the law regarding sex and age in order to include the protection of all children and, again, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for helping in that respect.
  In particular, I have added preparatory offences—for example, inciting a child to commit gross indecency, and restricting a child's liberty, which would include abduction. It will also allow for interventions by the police which should result in minimising the opportunity to commit real, physical harm on a child.
  Importantly, my amendment also includes a subsection to punish parents and guardians who betray a sacred trust by sexually abusing their own children.
  Proposals such as those contained in this amendment work in the United States, so why not here? The purpose of my amendment is to allow for the arrest of paedophiles for preparatory offences—those actions which lead to the most awful sexual violation of children. Intervention before physical harm is committed is the aim of my amendment.
  There is no doubt that these actions of incitement, abduction and paving the way for sexual activity against a child should be considered as a crime in itself. After all, it is a crime, for example, to be caught going equipped to steal, thus allowing the police to arrest a would-be thief or burglar.
  Considerable damage can be done to a child subject to any of the activities described in my amendment. Waiting for committees to report, for departments to consider and for room in the legislative programme is like waiting for Godot. The well-being and protection of our children is just too precious for us not to accept the amendments. I beg to move.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, again, I do not think that there is any difference between the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and the Government on what we seek to bring about. Perhaps I should set out the principal stand that we adopt.
  Our view is that all objectionable behaviour of the sort generally described by the noble Baroness, which is directed to the vulnerable—namely, children—should be capable of being caught by effective criminal sanctions. In a deep sense, it is not really relevant whether that is done on the Internet or by more conventional means. It seems to us that the law should meet the mischief effectively, comprehensively and coherently, whatever the mechanism or device which is used.
  The first part of the first new clause—and I will spend a little longer than on the earlier matters, if I may, without trespassing on your Lordships' patience—is directed at using an electronic communication for the purpose of engaging in an act of gross indecency. That is to catch, if I understand it right, a person who uses the Internet to get himself in a position where he is able to commit an act of gross indecency with or towards a child.

  1543
  If the use made of the Internet contains material which is sufficiently explicit as to the person's intentions, that behaviour is already caught by the incitement provisions of Section 1 of the Indecency with Children Act 1960.
  The noble Baroness is right, of course, that more than single mind is required to prove conspiracy, but incitement is not in that category. If the material is not explicit but is used to arrange a meeting, the second part of the proposed amendment—inciting a child to a meeting with the intention of engaging in an act of gross indecency—would come into play.
  Depending on the available evidence, that activity might well be caught by the provisions of the Child Abduction Act 1984 or, indeed, by an attempted incitement to one of the offences under the Sexual Offences Act 1956. We need to bear in mind that Section 2 of the 1984 Act already makes it an offence for someone other than a parent or some others, without reasonable excuse, to take or detain a child under 16 so as to remove that child from, or keep him out of the control of, any person entitled to have lawful control of the child. A person is regarded as "taking a child" if he causes or is one of the causes of, or induces the child to accompany him or any other person, or causes the child to be taken. There is no requirement for physical removal of the child.
  So there are offences of aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring, or conspiracy to commit the offences covering much, if not all, of the behaviour dealt with in the noble Baroness's amendment. There are offences of attempted incitement under the 1956 Act.
  One of the cautionary pieces of advice which was well given to us by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice was to try to achieve coherence in the criminal law. We are not simply waiting for things to happen. As the noble Baroness knows, the first volume of Setting the Boundaries, on reforming the law on sexual offences, was published in July of this year, as was the second volume of supporting evidence. That is out for consultation at the moment. Those are very difficult, intricate parts of the law and if one has confused law reformed piecemeal, very often the perverse consequence is that the law is not able to be deployed appropriately in those areas.
  The consultation period will come to an end in March next year. I suggest, with great respect, that we should really try to reform the law on sexual offences in a comprehensive way, to introduce uniformity and clarity into this difficult area of the criminal law.
  The third part of the amendment—soliciting a child to an act of gross indecency—is covered by the incitement provisions of the existing Section 1 offence. The noble Baroness has already recited what is being done at the moment. I am grateful for her acknowledgement of the interim report of the sub-group. Our position is that we want children to be protected, but we want a comprehensive, workable framework for the criminal law.
  1544
  The Association of Chief Police Officers, the National Criminal Intelligence Service, the National Crime Squad, and Customs and Excise have already prepared their high-tech crime strategy in response to the emerging threat posed by high-tech crime. The Home Secretary approved £337,000 for the National Criminal Intelligence Service to prepare the ground—I agree with the point the noble Baroness made—for developing a national unit to tackle computer crime, which includes the offences committed by paedophiles to which she referred. I do not believe that there is a gap in the law which is capable of being filled, or ought to be filled, on a piecemeal basis.
  The second proposed new clause relates to indecency with children. Of course we want to protect children by means of the criminal law. The amendment I moved and which your Lordships agreed extends the protection of children by raising the age from under 14 to under 16. The first part of the second new clause would have no greater effect than the new clause I proposed. One part of the amendment dealt with potential parental liability. Indeed the penalty proposed is up to 10 years' imprisonment in circumstances where,
  "Any parent, guardian or other person having for the time being custody or control of a child who knowingly permits that child to engage in, or to assist any other person to engage in, sexual activity".
  That means that if a parent with a 15 year-old who is going out with another 15 year-old, knows that they may kiss each other or engage in sexual touching, that parent is liable to be charged with a criminal offence with a sanction of up to 10 years' imprisonment.
  This is not a drafting point; it is a point of substance. I take it as an illustration of the dangers that there are, for good motive and from a good heart, in trying to reform an area of law which is exceptionally difficult. People are regularly prosecuted to conviction in the courts in the United Kingdom. There are offences, of course, to protect children against abduction. I do not believe—this is really a conceptual difference between the noble Baroness and myself—that qualitatively or conceptually there is any difference between the Internet or any other form of human activity that is designed or is capable of damaging children.
  So I sympathise with the motives of the noble Baroness in putting forward these amendments. But the gap that she believes exists does not in fact exist. The powers are there for investigation and prosecution and a number of her illustrations on past occasions resulted in successful convictions.
  I have spent a little time on this. It is an important matter. I urge the House to reform this difficult area in a measured, careful, thoughtful way. The consultation period has not yet run. A good deal of the difficulty in our criminal law has arisen because of piecemeal attempts in the past which have developed and been determined by specific illustrations which outrage us all but which are not always a good guide to proportionate, appropriate reform.
  Baroness Blatch: My Lords, as always, I am grateful for the sensitive way in which the noble and learned

  1545
  Lord dealt with both my amendments. I was disappointed at the way in which he described new subsection (4) in the second amendment. I regard sexual exploitation of an under-age child—we are not talking of 16, 17 or 18 year-olds; we are talking about children under 16—as wrong. Complicit activity between a parent and children in this way is unacceptable and I regard subsection (4) as an important part of the amendment.
  Whatever we say, the police do not believe that they have enough powers to intervene on the ground. We said this at the last stage and know it still to be true. They want powers to intervene before a crime is committed against a child. Noble Lords will have to forgive me. I am coloured by my own experience as a Minister at the Home Office and the total failure I experienced in trying to obtain a description of corrupting and depraving materials; that is, materials which were being illicitly sent through the post to unsuspecting recipients. I failed miserably because there is a natural resistance in the Home Office to draft legislation of this kind. It is something about which I feel extremely strongly and I must test the opinion of the House.
  3.35 p.m.
  On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 33) shall be agreed to?
  Their Lordships divided: Contents, 104; Not-Contents, 185.

  Division No. 1

  CONTENTS

  Aberdare, L.

  Elliott of Morpeth.L.

  Alton of Liverpool, L.

  Elton, L.

  Ampthill, L.

  Ferrers, E.

  Anelay of St Johns, B.

  Fookes, B.

  Ashcroft, L.

  Freeman, L.

  Astor of Hever, L.

  Gardner of Parkes, B.

  Attlee, E.

  Geddes, L.

  Belstead, L.

  Glenarthur, L.

  Blaker, L.

  Glentoran, L.

  Blatch, B.

  Gray of Contin, L.

  Boardman, L.

  Hanham, B.

  Brabazon of Tara, L.

  Hayhoe, L.

  Brougham and Vaux, L.

  Henley, L. [Teller]

  Burnham, L. [Teller]

  Higgins, L.

  Buscombe, B.

  Howe, E.

  Byford, B.

  Hunt of Wirral, L.

  Campbell of Alloway, L.

  Jopling, L.

  Campbell of Croy, L.

  Kingsland, L.

  Carnegy of Lour, B.

  Kirkham, L.

  Carr of Hadley, L

  Knight of Collingtree, B.

  Chadlington, L.

  Laird, L.

  Clark of Kempston, L.

  Lamont of Lerwick, L.

  Cockfield, L.

  Lane of Horsell, L.

  Cooke of Islandreagh, L.

  Luke, L.

  Cope of Berkeley, L.

  Lyell, L.

  Cranborne, V.

  Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L

  Crathorne, L.

  Mayhew of Twysden, L.

  Crickhowell, L.

  Miller of Hendon, B.

  Dacre of Glanton, L.

  Molyneaux of Killead, L.

  Dean of Harptree, L.

  Monro of Langholm, L.

  Denham, L.

  Montrose, D.

  Dixon-Smith, L.

  Moore of Lower Marsh, L.

  Dundee, E.

  Moore of Wolvercote, L.

  Eden of Winton, L.

  Mowbray and Stourton, L.

  Elles, B.

  Moynihan, L.

  1546

  Noakes, B.

  Ryder of Wensum, L.

  Northbrook, L.

  Saatchi, L.

  Northesk, E.

  Seccombe, B.

  Norton of Louth, L.

  Sharples, B.

  O'Cathain, B.

  Shaw of Northstead, L

  Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

  Skelmersdale, L.

  Park of Monmouth, B.

  Stodart of Leaston, L.

  Parkinson, L.

  Strathclyde, L.

  Pearson of Rannoch, L.

  Swinfen, L.

  Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

  Thomas of Gwydir, L.

  Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

  Trefgarne, L.

  Rawlings, B.

  Vivian, L.

  Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

  Waddington, L.

  Reay, L.

  Wilcox, B.

  Renton, L.

  Wilson of Tillyorn, L.

  Rogan, L.

  Wolfson, L.

  Rotherwick, L.

  Young, B.

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Ackner, L.

  Faulkner of Worcester, L.

  Acton, L.

  Filkin, L.

  Addington, L.

  Fitt, L.

  Ahmed, L.

  Gale, B.

  Alderdice, L.

  Geraint, L.

  Alli, L.

  Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

  Amos, B.

  Gladwin of Clee, L.

  Andrews, B.

  Goldsmith, L.

  Archer of Sandwell, L.

  Goodhart, L.

  Ashley of Stoke, L.

  Goudie, B.

  Avebury, L.

  Gould of Potternewton, B.

  Bach, L.

  Grabiner, L.

  Barnett, L.

  Graham of Edmonton, L.

  Bassam of Brighton, L.

  Greaves, L.

  Beaumont of Whitley, L.

  Gregson, L.

  Berkeley, L.

  Grenfell, L.

  Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

  Hardy of Wath, L.

  Blackstone, B.

  Harris of Greenwich, L.

  Blease, L.

  Harris of Richmond, B.

  Bledisloe, V.

  Harrison, L.

  Blood, B.

  Haskel, L.

  Borrie, L.

  Hayman, B.

  Bragg, L.

  Hollis of Heigham, B.

  Brennan, L.

  Howells of St. Davids, B.

  Brett, L.

  Howie of Troon, L.

  Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

  Hoyle, L.

  Brookman, L.

  Hughes of Woodside, L

  Bruce of Donington, L.

  Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

  Burlison, L.

  Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

  Carter, L. [Teller]

  Castle of Blackburn, B.

  Islwyn, L.

  Chalfont, L.

  Janner of Braunstone, L.

  Christopher, L.

  Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord Privy Seal)

  Clarke of Hampstead, L.

  Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

  Jeger, B.

  Clement-Jones, L.

  Jenkins of Putney, L.

  Clinton-Davis, L.

  Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

  Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

  King of West Bromwich, L.

  Craig of Radley, L.

  Layard, L.

  Crawley, B.

  Lea of Crondall, L.

  Darcy de Knayth, B.

  Lipsey, L.

  David, B.

  Lockwood, B.

  Davies of Oldham, L.

  Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

  Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

  Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

  Desai, L.

  McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

  Dholakia, L.

  Dixon, L.

  McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

  Donoughue, L.

  MacKenzie of Culkein, I.

  Dubs, L.

  Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L

  Elder, L.

  Mackie of Benshie, L.

  Evans of Parkside, L.

  Maddock, B.

  Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

  Mallalieu, B.

  Ezra, L.

  Mar and Kellie, E.

  Falconer of Thoroton, L.

  Mason of Barnsley, L.

  Falkland, V.

  Merlyn-Rees, L.

  Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

  Methuen, L.

  1547

  Mishcon, L.

  Smith of Clifton, L.

  Morgan, L.

  Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

  Morris of Castle Morris, L.

  Smith of Leigh, L.

  Newby, L.

  Stallard, L.

  Nicholson of Winterbourne, B.

  Steel of Aikwood, L.

  Nicol, B.

  Stoddart of Swindon, L.

  Northover, B.

  Stone of Blackheath, L.

  Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

  Strange, B.

  Orme, L.

  Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

  Parekh, L.

  Taylor of Blackburn, L.

  Patel of Blackburn, L.

  Tenby, V.

  Paul, L.

  Thomas of Walliswood, B.

  Phillips of Sudbury, L.

  Thomson of Monifieth, L.

  Plant of Highfield, L.

  Thornton, B.

  Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

  Tomlinson, L.

  Puttnam, L.

  Tordoff, L.

  Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

  Turnberg, L.

  Rea, L.

  Turner of Camden, B.

  Rendell of Babergh, B.

  Uddin, B.

  Rennard, L.

  Wakefield, Bp.

  Richardson of Calow, B.

  Walmsley, B.

  Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

  Walpole, L.

  Roll of Ipsden, L.

  Warner, L.

  Roper, L.

  Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

  Russell, E.

  Watson of Richmond, L.

  Sainsbury of Turville, L.

  Weatherill, L.

  St. John of Bletso, L.

  Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

  Sandberg, L.

  Whitaker, B.

  Scotland of Asthal, B.

  Whitty, L.

  Serota, B.

  Wigoder, L.

  Sewel, L.

  Wilkins, B.

  Sharman, L,

  Williams of Crosby, B.

  Sharp of Guildford, B.

  Williams of Elvel, L.

  Shepherd, L.

  Williams of Mostyn, L.

  Sheppard of Liverpool, L.

  Williamson of Horton, L.

  Shore of Stepney, L.

  Winston, L.

  Shutt of Greetland, L.

  Woolmer of Leeds, L.

  Simon, V.

  Young of Old Scone, B.

  Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
  3.46 p.m.
  [Amendment No. 34 not moved.]
  Clause 43 [Exclusion orders]:
  Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 35:
  Clause 43, page 26, leave out lines 15 to 27.
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 35 and speak to Amendments Nos. 36 to 38. However, I shall first allow the noble and learned Lord to speak because it is possible that he may have something welcome to say.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, yes. The amendment relates to the subject of the report of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon. He raised questions which a number of your Lordships thought required serious consideration, not least on the previous occasion. Although the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, did not then speak, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, the noble Lords, Lord Carlisle and Lord Dholakia, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, raised the issue.
  The Government are prepared to accept the amendments for the reasons deployed on previous occasions—not in their entirety but in their principle
  1548
  thrust. However, I must make it plain that we looked to flexibility to amend the maximum length of exclusion orders and conditions in case a year was shown to be insufficient.
  The amendments would require primary legislation and therefore, so that your Lordships are not misled, we propose in another place to extend the maximum duration of both an exclusion order and an exclusion condition of a community order to two years. That gives the court the power which I think your Lordships thought was more appropriate than executive decision, even by affirmative procedure on secondary legislation.
  Secondly, the amendments take away the power of the Secretary of State to add to the list of those areas of the offender's private life with which exclusion and curfew should not conflict or interfere. The list may be required to be added to. It was not one of the concerns of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee but in another place we shall seek to reinstate those powers which do not go to the principled point.
  In short, therefore, I hope that I have pleased all noble Lords.
  Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord most warmly for that concession. He has done exactly what I hoped he would do: he has conceded the point of principle, which was the one point that concerned us. It is entirely satisfactory to these Benches.
  Lord Goodhart: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene briefly as I am the only current member of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee present in your Lordships' House. I can however see a former member present. The committee feel most strongly about this issue. It is an issue of principle that the power of sentencing should not be capable of being increased by delegated legislation, particularly where it interferes with the liberty of the subject, even if it is not concerned with an actual sentence of imprisonment. We greatly welcome the Government's position.
  Baroness Blatch: My Lords, on behalf of the whole House I thank the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee for its service to the House. Noble Lords on all Benches benefit from the committee's preparatory work before they consider the details of Bills. I am sure that the whole House also wishes to join me in thanking the noble and learned Lord for his work in bringing us to this point.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 46 [Community sentences: drug abstinence requirements]:
  Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 36:
  Clause 46, page 28, leave out lines 1 to 9.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 47 [Community sentences: curfew requirements]:
  Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 37:
  Clause 47, page 31, leave out lines 8 to 17.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 48 [Community sentences: exclusion requirements]:
  Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 38:
  Clause 48, page 32, leave out lines 13 to 22.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 52 [Regulation of community orders]:
  Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendments Nos. 39 to 41:

  Clause 52, page 37, line 17, after ("local") insert ("probation").

  Page 37, line 22, after ("local") insert ("probation").

  Page 37, line 25, after ("local") insert ("probation").

  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Clause 60 [Supervision of young offenders after release]:
  Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 42:
  Clause 60, page 44, line 6, after ("local") insert ("probation").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 61 [Release on licence etc: drug testing requirements]:
  Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 43:
  Clause 61, page 44, line 45, after ("local") insert ("probation").
  On Quest ion, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 64 [Arrangements for assessing etc. risks posed by certain offenders]:
  Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 44:
  Clause 64, page 45, line 32, after ("local") insert ("probation").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 66 [Duties of local boards in connection with victims of certain offences]:
  Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendments Nos. 45 to 53:

  Clause 66, page 47, line 11, after ("local") insert ("probation").

  Page 47, line 20, after ("local") insert ("probation").

  Page 47, line 24, after ("local") insert ("probation").

  Page 47, line 27, after ("local") insert ("probation").

  Page 47, line 36, after ("local") insert ("probation").

  Page 47, line 38, after ("local") insert ("probation").

  Page 47, line 41, after first ("local") insert ("probation").

  Page 47, line 41, after second ("local") insert ("probation").

  Page 47, line 42, after ("local") insert ("probation").

  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Clause 69 [Failure to secure regular attendance at school: increase in penalty]:
  Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 54:
  Clause 69, page 49, line 34, at end insert—
  ("( ) This section shall apply only in cases where the failure to attend school is with the knowledge and consent of the parent or other adult responsible for securing the child's attendance at school.").
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, Amendment No. 54 in my name and that of my noble friend is concerned with Clause 69 which increases the penalties on parents whose children play truant from school. I no longer seek to delete the clause: I do not believe that it would be proper to do so at this stage. The amendment makes a qualification to the clause. It bites only on a parent whose child fails to attend school,
  "with the knowledge and consent of the parent or other adult responsible for securing the child's attendance at school".
  The point was made very well by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, at the previous stage that it is perfectly possible for a child to go off to school, even to go through the school gates and register, and then fail to attend for the remainder of day. Following the previous stage of the Bill, I reported what had happened to our departmental office and was told of another case which was on all fours with the one referred to by the noble Baroness. It seems unreasonable that this should constitute an offence liable to a fine of £2,500. Does the Minister have anything to say on that point? I beg to move.
  Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I believe that the issue of culpability is a very real one. An effective policy to get young people off the streets and back into school is something that we all support. I am aware from previous debates that both the Liberal Democrat Benches and our Benches support the Government on all the practical measures they have introduced to encourage the police to visit young people who hang around shopping centres and play areas and to do what they can to get them back into school, and to encourage the community to engage in that process. However, I believe that this amendment goes to the heart of the question of culpability.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I suspect that, not for the first time today, we are moving towards consensus on this issue. I am grateful to the noble Earl for tabling this amendment which I believe is a helpful way forward. I should set out again what we intend to do with this provision so that there is no misunderstanding. At Report stage the noble Earl expressed concern that our proposal would result in innocent parents being taken to court for the actions of children over whom they had no control. The amendment which has been tabled means that the offence applies only to cases where truancy has occurred with the knowledge and consent of the parents.
  I assure the noble Earl that the object of our proposal is not to punish parents who are doing everything possible to ensure that their children are in school. Before a case comes to court there will be months of effort by the local education authority to resolve the matter. Efforts will be made to try to get the child back into school. The issue of non-attendance at school will be discussed extensively with the child concerned, his or her parents and the school involved. Magistrates will expect to see evidence of these discussions when a case comes to court. I am sure that

  1551
  magistrates will expect the local education authority to show that it has done everything possible to help the parents to get the child into school.
  If a parent makes every effort but the child refuses to co-operate in attending school, the local education authority has a number of options open to it. These may involve the use of an alternative education placement for a child other than at school, for example, in a pupil referral unit run by the LEA where the child will receive specialist help and support to re-engage him or her in education. For older children, the option of a place at a further education college could be considered. Alternatively, the child could be offered work experience in the last few years or months of compulsory education alongside the basic curriculum.
  Parenting orders can also be used to help parents. They are designed to help and support parents or guardians in addressing their child's anti-social and offending behaviour. Parenting orders were extremely successful in the pilot areas and were rolled out nationally on 1st June 2000. Those orders have achieved a success rate of 91 per cent in terms of completion. Most importantly, if parents are not able to get the child into school despite their best efforts, the local education authority can apply for an education supervision order which makes the local education authority responsible for educating the child. That is an important option. If a parent is genuinely unable to secure the education of a child at school, the local authority can step in.
  At Report stage the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, quoted the case of a child who had been off school for three months although his parents believed that he had been attending every day. The noble Earl repeated that example. Clearly, it is unacceptable for a school to wait that long to find out what has happened to a child. If the noble Earl and the noble Baroness give me further details of those cases I shall follow them up to see what more can be done. But it remains the case that in that situation a parent must accept some responsibility. Did the parents not ask the child about his or her progress at school? Were they not surprised when the child failed to bring home homework or talk about his or her experiences at school? All of those matters are very important. As a parent I ensure that I discuss my children's schooling with them each and every day, and we expect that of most reasonable parents. It is all very well for parents to protest their innocence but it is astounding that a child can be absent from school for a three-month period without the parents realising that something is amiss. Both schools and parents are responsible.
  Having heard the arguments and acknowledged the points that have been made, I am willing to accept the creation of a new and additional aggravated offence with a maximum penalty at level four and/or three months' imprisonment. That would leave the current offence under Section 444 unchanged. But the new and additional offence would require proof of parental knowledge of truancy. Failure to appear in court to answer a summons for this aggravated offence would
  1552
  allow the issue of a warrant to secure attendance at court. The clear advantage is that the higher penalty would be linked to the most serious cases only.
  Therefore, we do not oppose the amendment today. However, we should like the opportunity, if the noble Earl is prepared to offer it, to discuss the wording of the amendment with the draftsman and, if necessary, table revised wording in another place at Commons consideration of Lords amendments. There is nothing between us on the principle. We are now very much of one view that the objective is to reduce truancy and there is value in adopting the course outlined by the Government. We all want to improve the future prospects of our children. We recognise the importance of ensuring that there is compliance in this area and that the courts are perhaps used in a more sensitive and appropriate way so that parents are brought into the court arena. We can achieve the objective of driving down truancy rates by using the law in a more sensible and intelligent manner.
  Baroness Blatch: My Lords, before the noble Earl, Lord Russell, winds up on the amendment, I should like to say that we have arrived at a very agreeable pass. I thank the Minister for the work that he clearly has done in the back room.
  4 p.m.
  Earl Russell: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the Minister for what he has done. We are approaching compromise at a rapid speed. I found his reply extremely helpful. I shall not pretend that I agreed with every word of it, but this seems entirely the wrong time to take up the few words that I did not agree with.
  Perhaps I may just clarify one point before we leave the matter. Is it the intention to end up with an aggravated offence of failing to attend school with the knowledge of the parents or with the knowledge and consent of the parents? There is a material difference. I should be glad to know what is in the Government's mind.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, we want to reflect carefully on the weight of those two words. It is for that reason that we want to take the matter away. We would very much like to have the opportunity of having further discussions with the noble Earl about the precise formulation of the wording because clearly it will have a material effect.
  Earl Russell: My Lords, that is exactly what I understood the position to be. It is a good, honest and sensible answer. I thank the Minister for it very warmly. I beg to move.
  Noble Lords: No.
  Earl Russell: My Lords, it was my understanding that the Minister needs the amendment in order to have an opportunity to consider further the issue in another place.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I can confirm that that is the situation.
  Ear Russell: My Lords, I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 75 [General interpretation]:
  Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 55:
  Clause 75, page 51, line 3, after ("local") insert ("probation").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 77 [Commencement]:
  Baroness Hanham Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 56:
  Clause 77, page 51, line 18, at end insert—
  ("( ) No day may be appointed for the commencement of sections 40 to 42 until the results of the review of the sentencing framework of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 can be taken into account.").
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, at all stages during the passage of the Bill we have tried to persuade the Government that the change to the names of the orders should not be promulgated until the review of the sentencing framework has been completed. In view of the conciliatory tones that have been adopted so often today I hope that we can persuade the Government that this should be the case here. It is clear that there are disagreements about the new names of the orders. It is clear also that the review of the sentencing framework may introduce different forms of orders. It could be extremely confusing to change the names of the orders at this stage and then change them again as a result of the sentencing framework review. Therefore, I ask once more that this matter be delayed until the sentencing framework review has been completed. I beg to move.
  Lord Bach: My Lords, when the amendment appeared on Report I described it as ingenious. I do not know whether one can be ingenious twice. But if one can be, the noble Baroness has succeeded. However, she has not succeeded in persuading us that this is the right course to take.
  The effect of the amendment would be to prevent the commencement of Clauses 40 to 42, which rename community orders, until the review of the sentencing framework in the Criminal Justice Act 1991 is completed and its results taken into account. That is something that is some way off.
  We believe that it is right to change these names as soon as convenient. We do not see sufficient reason to await the results of the sentencing review. We strongly feel that changing the names of these orders will make them better understood by the general public. That is critical. These are public courts that give out public sentences. We believe that the public do not really understand what a probation order is, what a community service order is and particularly what a combination order is. If the public were asked what a combination order is, most people would quite understandably throw up their hands and say, "I have not the faintest idea what a combination order is". That is why we believe that the sooner the public are better informed, the sooner they will better understand what it is that the courts are doing when they pass these significant and important orders against convicted
  1554
  persons. We believe that the change of name should come in sooner rather than later; in fact, as soon as possible.
  The review that the noble Baroness refers to in her amendment is a broad review which will not report yet. The consequences of the report will not be implemented for an even longer time. Perhaps I may briefly remind the House what is the point of the review: what principles should guide sentencing decisions; what types of disposal should be made available to the courts; the costs of different disposals; what changes therefore need to be made to the current sentencing framework; and the likely impact of any recommendations in terms of costs and the effects on the prison population. These are among the various issues that this important review will need to comment on. Its comments will need to be considered and either acted on or not acted on. We believe there is some urgency in changing these names. Although we understand exactly what the noble Baroness seeks to do in her amendment, we do not think it is an appropriate amendment to pass. We ask the House not to accept it.
  Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I have had a good innings on the amendment. At the end of the day, I am sorry that I have not won. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 78 [Extent]:
  Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 57:
  Clause 78, page 52, line 3, at end insert—
  ("( ) Section (Extension of corresponding Northern Ireland offence: conduct towards 14 to 16 year olds) extends to Northern Ireland only.").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Schedule 1 [Local boards]:
  Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendments Nos. 58 to 61:

  Schedule 1, page 53, line 5, after ("local") insert ("probation").

  Schedule 1, page 53, line 6, after ("local") insert ("probation").

  Schedule 1, page 53, line 33, leave out sub-paragraph (5).

  Schedule 1, page 53, line 35, leave out ("sub-paragraph (5) and").

  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 62:
  Schedule 1, page 54, line 20, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, on Report I undertook to reflect upon strongly held views in the House that all boards would require a secretary and a treasurer. I prayed in aid of my position Gwent Probation Service. On reflection, we believe that it would be desirable in all circumstances that a board appoints either a secretary or a treasurer. I promised at the time that I would give the matter fair consideration. That is why we have tabled Amendment No. 62. It is in identical text to the amendment persuasively moved by the noble

  1555
  Baroness, Lady Blatch, on Report. I am more than content with its minor alteration but its major impact. I beg to move.
  Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am overwhelmed. I thank the Minister. It is an important but small amendment. There will be legal and financial obligations on all these boards, however small or large. Whether it is a part-time person or a contracted-out service, it is essential to have a secretary and treasurer. I am grateful for what the noble Lord has done.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I do not think there is anything needed in reply. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, has made the points most effectively.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendments Nos. 63 to 84:

  Schedule 1, page 54, line 21. after ("local") insert ("probation").

  Schedule 1, page 54, line 27, after ("local") insert ("probation").

  Schedule 1, page 54, line 28, after ("local") insert ("probation").

  Schedule 1, page 54, line 39, after ("local") insert ("probation").

  Schedule 1, page 54, line 42, after ("local") insert ("probation").

  Schedule 1, page 55, line 3, after ("local") insert ("probation").

  Schedule 1, page 55, line 5, after ("local") insert ("probation").

  Schedule 1, page 55, line 9, after ("local") insert ("probation").

  Schedule 1, page 55, line 18, after ("local") insert ("probation").

  Schedule 1, page 55, line 28, after ("local") insert ("probation").

  Schedule 1, page 55, line 29, after ("local") insert ("probation").

  Schedule 1, page 55, line 31, after ("local") insert ("probation").

  Schedule 1, page 55, line 38, after ("local") insert ("probation").

  Schedule 1, page 55, line 40, after ("local") insert ("probation").

  Schedule 1, page 56, line 4, after ("local") insert ("probation").

  Schedule 1, page 56, line 8, after ("local") insert ("probation").

  Schedule 1, page 56, line 13, after ("local") insert ("probation").

  Schedule 1, page 56, line 17, after ("local") insert ("probation").

  Schedule 1, page 56, line 20, after ("local") insert ("probation").

  Schedule 1, page 56, line 27, after ("local") insert ("probation").

  Schedule 1, page 56, line 32, after ("local") insert ("probation").

  Schedule 1, page 56, line 37, after ("local") insert ("probation").

  The noble Lord said: My Lords, these amendments and Amendments Nos. 85 to 147 have already been spoken to. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Schedule 5 [Amendments of the Sex Offenders Act 1997]:
  Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendments Nos. 85 and 86:

  Schedule 5, page 65, line 30, after ("local") insert ("probation").

  Schedule 5, page 66, line 30, after ("local") insert ("probation").

  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Schedule 7 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
  Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendments Nos. 87 to 147:

  Schedule 7, page 69, line 12, after ("local") insert ("probation").

  Schedule 7, page 69, line 13, after ("local") insert ("probation").

  Schedule 7, page 70, line 12, first column, after ("local") insert ("probation").

  Schedule 7, page 70, line 12, second column, after ("local") insert ("probation").

  1556

  Schedule 7, page 70, line 13, first column, after ("local") insert ("probation").

  Schedule 7, page 70, line 13, second column, after ("local") insert ("probation").

  Schedule 7, page 70, line 17, first column, after ("local") insert ("probation").

  Schedule 7, page 76, line 7, after ("local") insert ("probation").

  Schedule 7, page 76, line 12, after first ("local") insert ("probation").

  Schedule 7, page 76, line 12, after second ("local") insert ("probation").

  Schedule 7, page 76, line 36, after ("local") insert ("probation").

  Schedule 7, page 76, line 45, after ("local") insert ("probation").

  Schedule 7, page 77, line 2, after ("local") insert ("probation").

  Schedule 7, page 77, line 8, after ("local") insert ("probation").

  Schedule 7, page 77, line 15, after ("local") insert ("probation").

  Schedule 7, page 77, line 19, after ("local") insert ("probation").

  Schedule 7, page 77, line 33, after ("local") insert ("probation").

  Schedule 7, page 77, line 37, after ("local") insert ("probation").

  Schedule 7, page 77, line 39, after ("local") insert ("probation").

  Schedule 7, page 80, line 13, after ("local") insert ("probation").

  Schedule 7, page 80, line 21, after ("local") insert ("probation").

  Schedule 7, page 81, line 4, after ("local") insert ("probation").

  Schedule 7, page 83, line 16, after first ("local") insert ("probation").

  Schedule 7, page 83, line 16, after second ("local") insert ("probation").

  Schedule 7, page 83, line 22, after ("local") insert ("probation").

  Schedule 7, page 84, line 3, after first ("local") insert ("probation").

  Schedule 7, page 84, line 3, after second ("local") insert ("probation").

  Schedule 7, page 84, line 8, after ("local") insert ("probation").

  Schedule 7, page 84, line 10, after ("local") insert ("probation").

  Schedule 7, page 84, line 32, after ("local") insert ("probation").

  Schedule 7, page 84, line 35, after first ("local") insert ("probation").

  Schedule 7, page 84, line 35, after second ("local") insert ("probation").

  Schedule 7, page 84, line 44, after ("local") insert ("probation").

  Schedule 7, page 85, line 2, after ("local") insert ("probation").

  Schedule 7, page 85, line 6, after ("local") insert ("probation").

  Schedule 7, page 85, line 23, after ("local") insert ("probation").

  Schedule 7, page 85, line 48, after first ("local") insert ("probation").

  Schedule 7, page 85, line 48, after second ("local") insert ("probation").

  Schedule 7, page 87, line 17, after ("local") insert ("probation").

  Schedule 7, page 88, line 27, after first ("local") insert ("probation").

  Schedule 7, page 88, line 27, after second ("local") insert ("probation").

  Schedule 7, page 88, line 36, after ("local") insert ("probation").

  Schedule 7, page 89, line 22, after ("local") insert ("probation").

  Schedule 7, page 89, line 25, after first ("local") insert ("probation").

  Schedule 7, page 89, line 25, after second ("local") insert ("probation").

  1557

  Schedule 7, page 90, line 20, at end insert—

  ("Restoration to list.
  4C.—(1) If it appears to a chief officer of police or a director of social services of a local authority that the conditions set out in subsection (2) below are satisfied in the case of an individual, the chief officer or (as the case may be) the director may apply to the High Court for anorder under this section to be made in respect of the individual.
  (2) The conditions are that—

  (a) the individual is no longer included in the list kept by the Secretary of State under section I above, and

  (b) the individual has acted in such a way (whether before or after he ceased to be included in the list) as to give reasonable cause to believe that an order under this section is necessary to protect children in general, or any children in particular, from serious harm from him.

  (3) An application under this section may be made at any time after the individual ceased to be included in the list.
  (4) If the High Court is satisfied that the conditions set out in subsection (2) above are satisfied, it must order the restoration of the individual's inclusion in the list; otherwise it must dismiss the application.
  (5) Where an order is made under this section, section 4B above has effect with the following modifications—

  (a) in subsection (3), the reference to the individual being a child when he was included in the list is to he read as a reference to his being a child when the order under this section was made,

  (b) subsections (3)(a) and (4)(a) are to have effect as if at the end there were inserted "beginning with the making of the order under section 4C below",

  (c) in subsection (5)(a), the reference to the individual's circumstances changing since he was included in the list is to be read as a reference to his circumstances changing since the order under this section was made.

  (6) For the purposes of this section an individual is no longer included in the list if a direction under section 4A(3) above has been given in respect of him and his inclusion in the list is not restored by virtue of an order under this section.
  (7) In this section "local authority" has the same meaning as in the Education Act 1996."").

  Schedule 7, page 91, line 45, after ("local") insert ("probation").

  Schedule 7, page 92, line 17, after ("local") insert ("probation").

  Schedule 7, page 92, line 32, after ("local") insert ("probation").

  Schedule 7, page 93, line 47, after ("local") insert ("probation").

  Schedule 7, page 94, line 52, after first ("local") insert ("probation").

  Schedule 7, page 94, line 52, after second ("local") insert ("probation").

  Schedule 7, page 95, line 12, after ("local") insert ("probation").

  Schedule 7, page 100, line 2, after ("local") insert ("probation").

  Schedule 7, page 101, line 38, after ("local") insert ("probation").

  Schedule 7, page 101, line 40, after ("local") insert ("probation").

  Schedule 7, page 101, line 41, after ("local") insert ("probation").

  Schedule 7, page 101, line 42, after ("local") insert ("probation").

  Schedule 7, page 101, line 48, after ("local") insert ("probation").

  Schedule 7, page 102, line 3, after ("local") insert ("probation").

  Schedule 7, page 102, line 3, after ("a") insert ("local probation").

  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
  I congratulate all of those who have taken part in the deliberations on the Bill. Although we had a number of Divisions during the early part of Report stage last week where obviously we did not agree, for the most part there was consensus among us and a degree of commitment to improve the criminal justice system so that important strides can be made in combating crime and protecting the public. I am particularly pleased with those elements of "Sarah's Law" that have been put in place. I pay tribute to all Members of the House who played a part in ensuring that we focused on that. In particular, for child protection reasons, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Brennan and Lord Hylton, for their contributions and for being persuasive about tackling sex tourism. That was a most useful debate.
  There remains a fundamental divide of principle and purpose over one aspect of the Bill—we shall no doubt return to that—but the arguments have been honourably made and honourably fought. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, although he is not in his place, to the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, for the forceful way in which they put their arguments.
  This is an important Bill. It has been constructively approached. There have been valuable discussions. We have forged some useful amendments between us that breach the political divide because we all share the common objective of securing effective and well-intentioned legislation which works in practice. For all of those reasons, and many more, I commend the Bill to the House.
  Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)
  Baroness Blatch: My Lords, this is the House at its best—doing its job, revising legislation. It has strengthened the Bill. The Bill returns to another place in a better form. I hope that we do not see too many of the amendments back in this place. I thank the Minister, noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches, noble Lords on the Cross Benches and my colleagues behind me who worked assiduously and took the whole matter very seriously indeed. I wish the Bill well as it returns to another place.
  Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I thank the Minister and his colleagues, the noble Lord, Lord Bach, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams, for their considerable help in trying to improve the Bill. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, for the way she has handled some of the issues. The Bill is very much better as it returns to the other place. I noted the Minister's earlier comment that there are certain principles which the Government are not prepared to accept. I hope that the Government will take careful note of what your Lordships' House had to say about some of those matters. There are certain principles in the Bill, particularly regarding the central employment of chief officers of probation, which they seem to

  1559
  favour and we do not. The noble Lord can take it from us that when those issues come up again there will be opposition from this side of the House.
  I thank the Minister for giving us the opportunity to meet him and his staff to discuss some of the issues that were of concern. Much of the Bill has been improved as a result of the private discussion that has taken place. I thank the noble Lord and wish him success.
  On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Pre-Budget Report
4.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement on the Pre-Budget Report which has been made in another place by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Statement is as follows:
"In 1997 Britain had rising inflation, a deficit of £28 billion, a national debt that had doubled and was at risk of repeating the old familiar stop-go cycle. So, in this Pre-Budget Report, which will address specific and immediate concerns, we will do nothing to put at risk the economic stability that has given us the lowest unemployment for 20 years, the lowest inflation for 30 years, mortgages at 4 per cent—£1,000—below the average of the previous 20 years, and a Budget discipline that has enabled us to cut borrowing and now invest more every year in hospitals, schools and public services.
"And this hard-won and newly-won stability now gives Britain an opportunity we can either seize or squander—the opportunity to achieve high and sustained levels of productivity growth, and so ensure long-term prosperity not just for some but for all.
"Yet every time the British economy has started to grow, as in the 1980s, governments have taken short-term decisions on tax and spending which have put inflation, interest rates and economic stability at risk. So, Britain has a choice—the choice that underlies this Pre-Budget Report.
"The risk for Britain is to repeat the 1980s' mistake of taking economic strength for granted even when we still have a large productivity gap with our competitors and trying to run the economy at a capacity not yet achieved. Our choice—the choice of the Pre-Budget Report—is that we build economic strength by investing and through tax incentives encouraging a new generation of entrepreneurs.
"The risk for Britain is a repeat of the late 1980s' mistake—claiming a surplus one year could fund tax cuts for every year and, by committing in tax what was yet to be earned, stoking up an unsustainable consumer boom, forcing interest and mortgage rates to rise. We will take no risks with stability. Our choice—the choice of the Pre-Budget Report—is to
1560
lock in stability by, as I shall announce today, prudently cutting debt and debt interest payments to keep inflation and interest rates low.
"The risk for Britain would be to cut investment in education and our infrastructure and perpetuate decades of neglect and undermine our economy. This Pre-Budget Report makes a different choice: to move forward with our three-year spending plans that will double public investment—from education and health, to transport, policing, and the environment—and by continuing to cut both debt interest and unemployment, combining public spending with targeted tax cuts to do more for pensioners and, as I shall show, give families the lowest direct tax burden for 30 years.
"So, this Pre-Budget Statement sets out a balanced approach: first, stability and prudence to keep interest rates low; secondly, tackling under-investment and then, when it is affordable to do so, targeted tax cuts for the nation's priorities. Let me turn, first, to the forecasts for the economy.
"Since 1997 our first and most fundamental economic choice has been, through Bank of England independence, tough controls on public spending and difficult decisions on tax, to build economic stability. There were those in this House who predicted that our policies would bring recession. I can report to the House that this year inflation is meeting its 2.5 per cent target and long-term interest rates are around the lowest for 30 years, the same as those in Germany and lower than in America.
"I can also report that the economy is forecast to grow by 3 per cent this year: manufacturing, despite its difficulties, by 1.25 per cent and exports growing by 8 per cent; consumer demand growing by 3.5 per cent with living standards rising; and business investment which has grown by 1.5 per cent as we lock in a higher level of investment as a share of our economy, 14.5 per cent, than at any time in 40 years, a bigger share of our economy than of the American economy; and in total, fixed investment has this year grown by 2.5 per cent. With 1.1 million more men and women in work than in 1997, Britain now has the lowest unemployment since 1979, the lowest long-term unemployment since 1978, the lowest youth unemployment since 1975; and the highest employment ever among women. Unemployment is now lower in every region, with today 1 million vacancies spread across the country. And this month we plan to reach our promised target: 250,000 young people moved from welfare to work.
"And it is precisely because we have taken the trouble to build the long-term foundation for success, and precisely because we have resisted short-termism that would threaten stability in interest rates that I can report that, even in times of uncertainty for the world economy over oil prices and exchange rates, the Treasury forecast for next year is that: inflation will meet its target of 2.5 per cent; manufacturing will grow by between 2 and 2.25 per cent; exports will grow by between 7 and

1561
7.5 per cent; growth will range from 2.25 to 2.75 per cent; consumer demand will grow by 2.25 to 2.5 per cent; business investment by 1.5 to 2 per cent; and total investment by 4.25 to 4.5 per cent.
"There were those who predicted that our public spending plans would lead to higher inflation and that the economy would run out of control. Between 1979 and 1997, inflation averaged 6.2 per cent. Since 1997, it has been less than half as much—2.4 per cent. Interest rates from 1979 averaged 10 per cent; since 1997, 6 per cent. Mortgage rates from 1979— 11 per cent; since 1997, mortgage rates an average of 7 per cent. Growth from 1979 averaged 2 per cent; since 1997, it has been 2.7 per cent.
"We have steered a course of stability, but we are not satisfied. Long-term prosperity for all is our objective, achieving, in this decade, full employment, higher education for the majority of young people, sustained improvements in our public services and, with an end to child and pensioner poverty, not just some, but all citizens sharing in rising prosperity.
"Long-term prosperity for all depends upon us reaching American levels of productivity growth—and on removing the barriers—by tackling under-investment, skill deficiencies, resistance to new technology and restrictive practices wherever they arise; building a stronger enterprise culture open to all. Today, as part of the Government's contribution to a new and necessary drive for higher productivity, I am proposing to encourage entrepreneurship and expand investment.
"To make Britain the best place in the world for multinationals to locate, we will build upon our cut in corporation tax from 33p to 30p—the lowest of all major countries and the lowest in our history—by consulting on three major changes: to abolish from April 2001 the withholding tax, not only on international bonds, but normally on payments of interest and royalties between companies in the UK; to relieve tax on sales of subsequent substantial shareholdings by companies; and, in line with the needs of the new economy, tax relief for intellectual property and goodwill as we create the best modern environment for business in the world. I can tell the House that this year corporation tax revenues are £2.5 billion lower than forecast.
"While it has been put to me that North Sea oil companies, earning higher profits from higher oil prices should be subject to special taxes, I can tell the House that I am determined not to make short-term decisions based on short-term factors. The key issue is the level of long-term investment in the North Sea and this will be the approach that will guide budget decisions in the future.
"My second set of proposals help small businesses whose numbers have grown already by 150,000 since 1997. Last year we cut small company corporation tax, once 23p to 20p, and introduced a new 10p rate—an overall cut in small company tax bills of nearly 25 per cent. Today I am publishing for
1562
consultation with small businesses a set of proposals that simplify small business VAT and are of direct help to half a million small businesses.
"Capital allowances and tax credits to encourage investment have already saved over £800 million to business since 1997; £0.3 billion to manufacturing. Because I understand the importance of manufacturing, I shall now examine for the Budget further incentives that help manufacturing, in particular the proposals from the CBI and the Engineering Employers Federation to extend the research and development tax credit.
"To help smaller high-risk and e-commerce companies recruit and retain the staff they need, we propose to expand tax relief for share options and make Britain the most attractive environment for e-commerce. In future, all employees can benefit from our enterprise management incentive scheme—up to a company limit of £2.5 million-worth of share options. For the period to May 2000, I propose to make provision for companies to limit and settle their liability for national insurance contributions on share options.
"Having cut capital gains tax from 40p to 10p for long-term investment, I now propose an even further widening of the scope for the 10p rate—to non-trading companies and to venture capital companies so that employees from all types of companies will benefit. To enhance the contribution of institutional investors, we will consult on the Myners Review proposals to reform the minimum funding requirement and to remove regulatory barriers to investing in venture capital.
"To expand savings generally and especially to double the number of low-income families who save, we will review all capital limits that deter savings. Already, 9 million ISA accounts have been opened and £3 billion more is being saved by low-income savers. The tax-free limit for ISA savers has been set for next year at £5,000. I propose once more to set it at £7,000, a figure 1 shall set for the next five years.
"To build enterprise and balanced economic development across all the regions, public investment, including public/private partnerships, we are proposing today that regional development agencies have greater freedom to decide locally how money is invested to meet local needs. The rate of small business creation in high unemployment communities is still one-sixth of the more prosperous areas and unemployment is still twice as high. Future jobs and long-term prosperity will come, not from benefit cheques or the old subsidies, but by a radically new approach, encouraging economic activity and business development along the lines proposed by the Rogers and Cohen reports.
"I now propose a radical reform of tax incentives designed to raise business investment in high unemployment areas by £1 billion. I propose to introduce stamp duty exemption for all properties in our most disadvantaged communities; accelerated tax relief for cleaning up contaminated land: VAT

1563
cuts to reduce the cost of residential property conversions; and tax relief to bring empty flats over shops back into use. I propose to consult on further business rate relief for small businesses in assisted areas; a new generous tax credit for community investment; and the creation of the first community development venture fund.
"To assist the upgrading of listed buildings central to community life in all parts of the country, I can also announce that we are today asking the European Commission to reduce VAT from 17.5 per cent to 5 per cent on repairs to churches.
"I have one further proposal for a special tax relief. We will not only continue to work for cuts in third world debt, but now plan to do more to meet the international targets of cutting world poverty by half and cut by two-thirds infant mortality, which, through preventable diseases, carries off one in seven of the world's children before the age of five. As one of a number of proposals that the International Development Secretary and I are working on to tackle child poverty, the Government will investigate a new tax incentive and spending measures to develop, cut the costs for and ensure the supply of anti-TB, anti-malaria and anti-AIDS drugs—drugs which could save lives, tragically still unavailable in the poorest countries, but with the potential that must now be realised to reduce avoidable suffering and unacceptable deaths.
"I turn to pre-Budget measures to meet our goal of full employment. In addition to making work pay through the lop income tax rate, the new working families' tax credit and the New Deal which some would abolish but which, as independent research shows, has cut youth unemployment by 40 per cent more than would have happened without it, the Secretary of State for Education and Employment and I will intensify coaching help for the 50,000 young people still out of work; consult on introducing a new service that will help redundant workers move quickly into new jobs; investigate how, with tax free and in some cases free adult learning, we can help to upgrade fast-changing workforce skills; extend the New Deal for lone parents with our nationwide programme of choices, starting next April, and extend to a further 150,000 lone parents not on income support the opportunity to get back to work; agree a new partnership with the voluntary sector to help those with disabilities who want work to get it, while with a £200 million a year additional package that the Secretary of State for Social Security will announce tomorrow, improving the living standards of those unable to work and carers; and, for each area, drawing up local full employment plans addressing all barriers to full employment in their local areas.
"Higher productivity and rising unemployment depends not just on ending decades of under-investment and targeting tax incentives on our priorities, but on entrenching a low inflation culture that prudently keeps interest rates and mortgage rates as low as possible. It is because we have learnt
1564
from the mistakes of the 1980s and before that I can tell the House that, in spite of the demands made to me, I have decided, in the interests of keeping interest rates and mortgage rates as low as possible, to lock-in over the coming years a fiscal stance that is the same or is tighter than we said at the time of the Budget.
"Let me give the House the background and the full financial figures. Our first fiscal rule—the golden rule: the first rule necessary to keep interest rates and mortgage rates as low as possible—is that over the cycle there must be a current surplus. So, however tempting it may be for some to identify large temporary surpluses as an excuse for permanent injections of resources into the economy, our golden rule demands constant prudence.
"In the Budget I forecast this year's current surplus at £14 billion. I now forecast this surplus to be £16.6 billion, and in the years from 2001–02 the current surpluses are forecast to be £16 billion, £14 billion, £8 billion and £8 billion—figures that ensure we remain on course to balance the current budget over the economic cycle, even on the most cautious of cases.
"Our second fiscal rule—the sustainable investment rule; a bulwark against short-termism that again helps keeps interest rates and mortgage rates as low as possible—is that while over the cycle we will borrow for investment, we do not borrow for consumption and we keep debt at a prudent and sustainable level below 40 per cent of national income.
"After a doubling of the national debt in the early 1990s, the ratio of debt to national income had by 1997 risen to 44 per cent. Having made the necessary difficult tax and spending decisions, we have in the three years since 1997 reduced the ratio of debt to national income from 44 per cent to 41.9 per cent, to 39.6 per cent, and to 36.8 per cent this April.
"I can report to the House that two decisions—first, the decision to use the proceeds from the spectrum auction to reduce our debt; and, second, to use this year's surplus to repay debt—now make possible a further and even more substantial reduction in debt that will keep interest payments low. Because we are, in total, cutting the stock of debt by as much as one-third, I can report to the House that the public sector net debt as a share of GDP will now fall from 36.8 per cent last year, to 32.3 per cent this year, to 30.9 per cent in 2001–02, and from what was a debt to GDP ratio as high as 44 per cent in 1997, I can report that this ratio is forecast to fall to 30 per cent and remain there in future years. With long-term interest rates lower and debt well within the 40 per cent ceiling, we are not only well placed to deal with the ups and downs of the economic cycle but have the best platform for years for sustained long-term growth.
"Our Budget forecast for net borrowing was a surplus of £6.5 billion this year. We now forecast the surplus to be £10 billion this year and £6 billion next. In future years the deficits will be £1 billion,

1565
£10 billion, £12 billion and £13 billion as we borrow to invest. In every one of the next five years, adjusting for the cycle a fiscal stance that is the same or is tighter than at the time of the Budget. And this year, with the spectrum proceeds, the net cash debt repayment will be £28 billion.
"So our approach is to reject the old vicious cycle of the 1980s—rising debt, higher long-term interest rates, higher debt repayment costs, lower growth, higher unemployment and enforced cuts in public spending—the old boom and bust. Instead, as we promised, we have by our decisions created a virtuous circle of falling debt, lower long-term interest rates, lower unemployment, lower debt payments and a stronger economy releasing more resources for public spending.
"I can report to the House that, because of this virtuous circle, lower unemployment has brought savings in social security which, compared with the Budget, provide an additional £1.5 billion next year and £2 billion and £2.5 billion in future years.
"In addition to higher government revenues this year from higher employment, higher earnings growth and steady growth, debt interest payments are now lower than we forecast at the time of the Budget, by £2.5 billion next year and £2 billion in the next two years.
"When we came into government we were paying out more in debt interest payments than we were spending on our schools. Soon, as a result of cutting debt payments, we will be able to spend 50 per cent more on our schools than we do on our debt interest.
"Over the past 20 years, 42 pence of every additional pound spent went to debt interest and social security. In the early 1990s it was 50 per cent of every pound. Debt and social security will now require only 17 pence of every pound, leaving more than 80 pence in every pound of additional spending for hospitals, schools and vital services, enabling us to tackle the long-term under-investment in Britain.
"It is therefore because we have cut the cost of debt and unemployment—now costing £5 billion less than in 1997—and because we have also secured sustainable growth, that we are able to lock-in a fiscal tightening, meet all our fiscal rules and, within this prudent framework, we are in an even stronger position than in July to tackle under-investment and target tax cuts on our nation's priorities.
"Since July I have received representations from people in this House about public spending, including representations which propose spending growth only in line with 2 per cent GDP growth per year. I have studied this proposal in detail. It would mean by year three, cuts in spending of £16 billion and after taking into account the measures that I will announce on pensions today, more than £16 billion.
"I have rejected these representations and, because the economy both needs and can afford—and cannot afford not to—to tackle the long-term under-investment, the Education Secretary will tomorrow, as part of allocating his annual 5 per cent
1566
real-term increase in education every year, announce resources for the new learning and skills council.
"And because investment is needed in our infrastructure, not just for social reasons but to build economic strength, the Minister for Transport will announce how every region, city and town will benefit from the new investment in roads; and, with new funds from the spending review allocated to each region for economic regeneration, the Deputy Prime Minister will shortly publish his rural and urban White Papers.
"As part of the 5.6 per cent real-terms rise in NHS spending each year for the next three years, the Secretary of State for Health will announce for each of the next three years his allocations to health authorities up to 2004.
"In addition to the Statement on pensions from my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Security tomorrow, and the extra allocation we have made to improve flood defences, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment is announcing today additional allocations to our schools.
"The windfall tax is money raised from the utilities specifically for the purpose of extending employment opportunity through the New Deal and educational opportunity, renovating so far 17,000 schools. Such has been the success of the New Deal in getting people back to work that the windfall levy account is underspent by £200 million. So the Secretary of State for Education and Employment and I have decided that, in addition to the rise in education spending this year, lower unemployment means that we can allocate new money for every school in every constituency in the country—-money to be available this year for repairs and improvements; money to be paid direct to the school. The head teacher of every primary school will receive a cheque for between £4,000 and £7,000. The head teacher of each secondary school will receive, for the smaller schools, £10,000; for the larger schools, £30,000. Prudence once again for a purpose, enabling us to target resources to our priorities and in a sustainable way.
"This prudence also allows us now to match public spending increases by tax cuts targeted on the country's priorities, including making reforms in the tax treatment of transport and the environment, to which I now turn.
"Between 1997 and 1999, retaining the fuel escalator introduced in 1993 helped to cut borrowing by £30 billion, helping to deliver lower interest rates and enabling us to begin the long-overdue investment in transport, the NHS and schools. And it will have brought about a cut in carbon dioxide pollution by an estimated 1 million to 2.5 million tonnes a year by 2010.
"But today, like all countries, we are having to deal with the rise in world oil prices from 11 dollars to 31 dollars. Because OPEC itself accepts that the

1567
world price is unacceptably high, our international efforts are geared to ensuring that production is raised and prices fall.
"So I recognise and understand the very genuine concerns that motorists and hauliers have, and it is because here in Britain we have already cut the deficit, already set aside £180 billion for the 10-year transport plan and already shown how we are meeting the Kyoto targets, that in the last Budget I removed the fuel escalator and made environmentally-based cuts in car and lorry licences and gave new incentives for environmentally efficient fuels.
"In line with the principles we have set down, I am now able today to show how we can complete these reforms and do more to meet people's concerns—without putting at risk either our economic stability, necessary investment in public services, or our environmental gains. Indeed, the reforms I now propose are tailor-made to meet our environmental obligations.
"The annual rise in the price of fuel that would automatically be introduced on Budget day would raise £560 million, putting petrol and diesel up by around 1½ pence a litre. I propose, at a cost of £560 million, a freeze in excise duties—an across-the-board duty freeze on all fuels that would initially last until April 2002—and, if the oil price remains at a high price between now and then, I can tell the House that there would be a duty freeze for a further year.
"I intend to go further in three vital respects. On top of the duty freeze—budgeted for in our fiscal arithmetic the first of the proposals I will consult on would itself involve additional expenditure of as much as £1,000 million and help to promote substantial benefit to the environment.
"Yesterday, we published a report showing the environmental benefits from the introduction of ultra low sulphur diesel in reducing local air pollution. As a result of cuts we made in excise duty on ultra low sulphur diesel, usage in Britain has risen from 20 per cent in 1997 to 40 per cent in 1998, to 100 per cent in 2000. It requires no change to be made in lorry and van engines and it now accounts for virtually 100 per cent of the market for diesel in Britain today. Britain is now leading in this cleaner diesel.
"We now need to build on that environmental achievement. The widespread use of ultra low sulphur petrol would further and significantly improve local air quality. Crucially, it would require no change to existing car engines.
"It is now time to make this cleaner fuel available in every petrol station of the United Kingdom and to make the use of this fuel, which requires no change in any car, cheaper for everyone.
"To do so, I propose to cut the excise duty for ultra low sulphur petrol so that it replaces unleaded petrol in every petrol station in Britain, and at a lower excise duty. On 1st October, we reduced the
1568
duty on ultra low sulphur petrol by 1p a litre. I propose, from Budget 2001, a further reduction of 2p a litre, making a cut of 3p in total on all ultra low sulphur petrol.
"And because it is right to maintain the proper balance between petrol and diesel, I propose also from Budget day to match the cut in low sulphur petrol with a 3p cut in excise duties on ultra low sulphur diesel which will go to all diesel users. I expect ultra low sulphur diesel and petrol to account for 100 per cent of the market next year and, when the excise duty cut is introduced at Budget time, motorists using any petrol station in Britain to be able to benefit from this duty cut.
"It is by giving this incentive for cleaner fuels that we can both advance our environmental principles and ensure, with a 3p cut per litre in all ultra low sulphur duty, a cheaper, cleaner fuel available in every garage—a better deal for drivers and cleaner air across Britain.
"I can also announce that for all cars which still use lead replacement petrol—where there is no longer an environmental case for a higher duty rate—I propose from Budget day to end the differential and cut the excise duty by 2p per litre.
"I now intend to go further to help the haulage industry that is undergoing restructuring. I propose support for scrapping or converting older lorries with a £100 million investment fund, including help for buying the new lorries that meet the highest technological and environmental standards, and support for the introduction of logistics and computerisation. The Deputy Prime Minister will also announce help for an industry-wide training and retraining scheme.
"But we can do more. So that foreign lorries pay their share of the costs of using our roads, we intend to introduce in Britain a vignette system—a British disc, under which non-British companies and lorries pay their share to Britain for using British roads.
"The Government have considered an essential user rebate or blue diesel scheme for lorry diesel. Such a scheme would be administratively cumbersome, could be levied only on future purchases of diesel, and would have to be opened to foreign lorries using British roads. It would not help hauliers where their fuel prices are directly passed on to customers. It would have no environmental benefits.
"The scheme I am proposing is far better. Subject to consultation and legal clearance, I now propose to bring forward a much-needed reform begun last year in vehicle excise duty for lorries that will radically cu rates for larger lorries with traditionally high licence fees. The scheme will be implemented in Budget 2001—to sweep aside the 100 separate rates, consolidate them into only seven rate bands, linked to environmental standards, and cutting the rates to match the lowest in Europe.
"Lorries in the most competitive sector will save over £2,000. Over 250,000 lorries will each pay lower licence fees as a result of a £300 million annual cut

1569
in licence fees; 100,000 lorries will save over £1,000; the average saving per lorry will be £715 a year; and the cuts are the equivalent in value to a cut of 3p in the price of diesel for the haulage industry—and again, with environmental incentives built in.
"Our proposals for the detailed new scheme, and licence rates, are published today, and the Government are able to start the transitional arrangements to this new licence scheme immediately. I have allocated £265 million for this Financial year—half of the annual revenue raised from lorry vehicle excise duty—to be spent before March for a refund scheme that can repay lorry owners up to half of this year's licence fee; 250,000 lorries, and all large lorries, will benefit from the refunds. They will be worth, for some of the largest lorries paying the highest fees, £1,000 and up to £4,000 this year. Refunds will be paid from next month, payments to be completed by the end of January—the detailed arrangements to be announced by the Minister for Transport.
"To help restructuring and investment in farming, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food announced last week, in addition to this year's £220 million package of measures, agri-money compensation for arable producers. In addition to freezing duty on red diesel at its current rate of 3p a litre, I also intend in Budget 2001 to abolish vehicle excise duty on tractors and agricultural vehicles completely.
"I now have a similar proposal for car licence fees. Consistent with our environmental principle that we tax vehicle ownership less, I want now to complete our environmentally based reform of vehicle excise duty for cars. The new licence fee we are introducing for new cars registered from March 2001 is linked to environmental efficiency. For all cars under 1200cc there is also now a lower rate licence fee with a £55 deduction on the standard licence. While this change has been welcomed, many, especially those in rural areas, have put it to me that greater choice would be available to rural motorists and motorists generally if the £55 deduction could be accessible for, not just cars under 1200cc but cars up to 1500cc, including, for example, the Focus, Golf, Astra, Escort and the Rover 214.
"So I propose to extend the lower rate licence fee, the £55 discount, to cars up to 1500cc, to be paid from July but to be backdated from today. So all those who have a car from 1200cc to 1500cc—an extra 5.4 million cars—will be entitled to £55 off their annual licence fee from today. So in total, over 8.5 million existing cars, one in every three, will now pay £55 below the standard fee.
"So for motorists as a whole, with the duty freeze and new reduced licence fee and the cut for ultra low sulphur diesel, the proposed Budget package makes changes worth the equivalent of a 4p a litre cut while meeting our environmental objectives.
"And by next year, for the haulage industry, changes that are worth the equivalent of a cut of 8p on a litre: in each case meeting our environmental
1570
obligations, not putting at risk public investment in vital services, nor the stability of the economy. Measures upon which Ministers are now inviting discussion in the pre-Budget consultation which will take place as Ministers visit every region of the country.
"I turn now to specific measures of benefit to families and to pensioners.
"Our aim is that not just some, but every child has the best start in life and that we halve child poverty in the coming decade.
"Families need help most at the time when parents are bringing up their children. As we extend our new integrated system of child support—from £15 a week child benefit for every child to a maximum of £50—our priority in the coming Budget is the new children's tax credit, a tax cut for families. This family tax cut, which replaces married couples' allowance, will be paid on top of child benefit to around 5 million families at £8.50 a week, and is worth £442 a year.
"On current figures, the proposals on which we are consulting would, if implemented, mean that overall the tax burden would not rise next year and I would achieve my aim of next year cutting the direct tax burden on the typical family below 20 per cent. It will fall from 20.3 per cent to 18.6 per cent, the lowest level since 1972.
"But I believe that in the coming Budget we can offer a larger tax cut for families. My aim is to increase the family tax cut to £10 a week, in total a £520-a-year tax cut, increasing families' income. And just as we are introducing a new system of child support based on the foundation of child benefit—but at the heart of which is the new working families' tax credit—so, too, it is now time, based on the same principle, to raise pensioner incomes by a tax and benefit reform that will have as its foundation the basic state pension, and will have as an essential building block, like the working families' tax credit, a new and generous pension credit.
"Our aim for pensions reform is both to end pensioner poverty and to ensure that all pensioners share in the rising prosperity of the nation. But in a new world of rapidly diverging pensioners' incomes—already 17 per cent of couples are retiring on more than £20,000 a year, and that percentage grows year on year—and where, as a result, inequalities between pensioner incomes are as great as inequalities within the population as a whole, we shall best meet our obligations to pensioners by a new approach.
"To plan for the future based on a flat rate earnings-linked rise paid to all, which would give exactly the same to those with incomes above £20,000 as to those on middle incomes and, because the income support system would do absolutely nothing for the poorest, would mean that by the time today's 45-year olds were retiring, for every £6 billion extra spent on an earnings link, £2 billion went to pensioners with incomes above £20,000 at

1571
today's prices. Thus less would be available for the middle and lower income pensioners, who are our first priority.
"So we need a policy that does most for those who need most and, at the same time, ensures that all pensioners—the very poor, those on modest incomes and the relatively comfortable—share in the rising prosperity of the nation.
"Perhaps I may tell the House what the new system, which will integrate tax and benefits and build upon the basic pension a new pension credit will look like in 2003. I shall then set out the transitional arrangements.
"First, for those in and at risk of poverty, we shall radically improve the minimum income guarantee. I can tell the House that the minimum income guarantee, which was £68.80 in 1997, is £78.45 today, and will be raised in April by £14 to £92.15. For thousands of our poorest pensioners, £700 extra a year.
"I can also tell the House today that when the new system is introduced in April 2003, the minimum income guarantee will be set not at £92, but at £100 a week—£22 a week more than today. For the first time a single pensioner will be guaranteed at least a £100 a week; and for couples, a rise from £106.60 in 1997 to £154. Every year after that I can tell the House that the minimum income guarantee will be raised in line with earnings.
"With the winter allowance there will be a 32 per cent increase in income even after inflation, demonstrating our determination that no pensioner is left behind as this Government work to ensure that pensioner poverty is a thing of the past. More than 2 million will benefit. People will be able to claim by phone. They will do so at the point of retirement and whatever adjustments thereafter would need to be made only when circumstances change.
"But we have a second obligation—to millions of pensioners who, after a lifetime of hard work, have modest occupational pensions and modest savings, but receive nothing from the system on top of their basic pension and have until now been penalised, not rewarded, for their savings; people whom we meet every week in our constituencies. This Government are determined that people who have worked hard and saved all their lives should now receive more.
"Tomorrow the Secretary of State for Social Security's Statement will outline the new integrated tax and benefit system—both the pension credit and the new pensioner tax arrangements.
"I said in the Budget that I wanted the beneficiaries of the new credit to be single pensioners with incomes up to £100 and pensioner couples with incomes up to £150. I can now tell the House that pensioner couples with incomes below £200, and single pensioners with incomes below £135—many millions of pensioners—will receive the new pension credit.
1572
"I can tell the House that while the pension will rise in line with inflation, the new pension credit will itself rise in line with earnings every year. In this way, we shall give recipients of the pension credit more than even the earnings link in the basic state pension would give them.
"The pensioners tax allowance will be set at April 2003 at an even higher level—£6,560 for the single pensioner—and for the next Parliament we propose that the pensioners' tax allowance also rises in line with earnings. For the vast majority of pensioners, the middle and low income pensioners of Britain, the new system will provide extra cash on top of the basic pension: sums of between £1 and £23 a week.
"Achieving all our aims: for millions of the neediest pensioners relief from poverty; for those on modest incomes a reward for their savings and occupational pensions more than an earning link could offer them; and ensuring that all pensioners can enjoy a share in the rising standards of living of the country.
"As we move to this new and better system, the Social Security Secretary and I have decided that the transitional arrangements should ensure that over the next two years pensioner incomes should rise faster than inflation and indeed faster than earnings. So from April next year we propose that for the single pensioner there should be a cash increase of £5 a week and for a married couple a rise of £8 a week. I can tell the House that the following year we can also guarantee that the pension will rise well above prices. There will be a cash increase of £3 for single pensioners and £4.80 for married couples.
"Over two years, a cash rise of £8 a week for single pensioners and £12.80 a week for couples. For pensions £2.6 billion more each year, on top of more for health, education, transport policing and public services.
"Those who would spend this money on tax-cutting should now tell us which hospitals, which schools, which public services they would cut. We have made our choice—investment, targeted tax cuts, keeping mortgage rates low, and more for pensions and families: a stronger, fairer Britain.
"I have one final announcement. I have had representations to abolish the winter fuel allowance and indeed abolish the free TV licence for the over-75s. I have even received representations to abolish the Christmas bonus. I have rejected such options that would give with one hand and take with another.
"I can confirm that now and in future years the free TV licences will remain for the over-75s, as we have promised. The Christmas bonus will continue and the winter allowance will be paid at £150. But the transitional arrangements to our new pension reform will not start next year, but can start this year; indeed, they will start this week. I can confirm that cheques are being sent out from Monday that will be paid to every pensioner household in Britain.

1573
"The winter allowance will not be paid at £150 this year; nor will it be abolished. For this year specially—the first year of the transitional arrangements—it will be paid not at £150, but at £200 to every pensioner household free of tax.
"I commend this Statement to the House".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.59 p.m.
Lord Saatchi: My Lords, perhaps I may, first, thank the Minister for giving your Lordships' House the opportunity to hear the Statement today and to comment on it.
When students of political history are examining the dramatic fall from grace of this Government—the fastest in the history of polling by Gallup—they will conclude that they fell because they underestimated the intelligence of the public. Your Lordships will recall that in Plato's allegory of the cave the people were tied to chains in a dark cave able to see a passing parade of objects that they thought were real, but which were in fact only the shadows cast by the objects.
As today's Statement shows, this Government's entire tax and spend strategy is built on shadows, on keeping people in the dark. They worked out that they could not win elections by offering to raise tax so they decided explicitly and consciously to cut visible taxes on voters while raising invisible taxes elsewhere. How else can one explain the words at the beginning of the Statement; namely, that the Pre-Budget Report would give families the lowest direct tax burden for 30 years? That statement, failing as it does to draw the distinction between direct and indirect taxes, is an insult to the intelligence of the public. It treats the public like morons.
However, the Government have overlooked the fact that the public are highly sophisticated and aware. Let us take two of the groups that the Government are trying to appease in the Statement: pensioners and fuel tax protesters. Why have these two groups been chosen? It is because they were early victims of the Government's strategy. Early on the Chancellor said that he would uprate pensions and fuel tax by the rate of inflation. It sounds reasonable—does it not?—except that he then used two different definitions of inflation, so pensioners ended up with an increase of 1.1 per cent in their income from the Government and fuel users with a 3.4 per cent increase in their tax payments to the Government. That is brilliant, except that an intelligent and well informed public saw through it, which led directly to the Chancellor's humiliating U-turns of today on those two areas.
Then, after weeks of saying that the Government could not possibly cut fuel tax to help hauliers and farmers, because that would mean cruel and heartless cuts to our schools and hospitals, they have in the Statement cut vehicle excise duty instead. They just changed the names and saved the hospitals.
The Government say that they are presiding over "strong public finances". Those three words are repeated endlessly in government statements. The idea, I think, is that people then fall at the
1574
Government's feet in gratitude. But where did these "strong finances" come from? I refer to the £46 billion surpluses in four years, to which the noble Lord referred. Is it perhaps because of the strong economy? No, it is not that, because trend growth of GDP is only two and a quarter per cent which is half as fast as that of America and even slower than that of Euroland.
But out of this modestly growing economy there is one item which is miraculously growing much more rapidly: government tax receipts which are growing by over 6 per cent a year. That is three times the rate of growth in the economy. There lies the true economic miracle of this Government: taxes growing three times faster than GDP. Even the great economic experts of the land are unsure how this innocently named "fiscal buoyancy" has come about.
How has it happened? I think that the Government have taken full advantage of the complexities of the tax system, many parts of which we heard about in the Statement. First, Britain's tax and benefits system under this Government transfers each year £30 billion—that is, between 9 and 12 per cent of all government spending—in and out of the very same households because of the overlap between taxpayers and recipients of state-administered benefits and pensions. For example, there are 14.2 million people whose income is less than £10,00 a year, half the average. They pay tax to the Government, and also receive means-tested benefits from the Government; and there is a bizarre range of methods by which those benefits are assessed for tax. There is plenty of scope there to hide various accounting methods.
Secondly, under this Government there has been a staggering proliferation of tax rates. According to the latest figures from the House of Commons Library, even the number of basic tax rates has more than doubled from 15 to 38 under the present Government. Tolley's Standard Tax Manual, which I am told is the Bible of tax accountants, has increased from 2,529 to 3,293 pages under this Government. The Finance Bill has famously grown to a record 570 pages in two volumes.
The Institute of Chartered Accountants recently warned that the tax system under this Government was now so complicated that it had,
"spun out of democratic control".
The Institute for Fiscal Studies says that it is now "extremely difficult" for people to calculate how much tax they are due to pay.
There is now a mass of over 250 complex tax allowances, reliefs, exemptions, credits, indexations, tapers, disregards and so on which taxpayers have to navigate. Today the Government invited pensioners to navigate a new credit.
Through the gradual erosion of those allowances the Government could achieve EU average levels of taxation almost imperceptibly, which is exactly what they are doing. According to PricewaterhouseCoopers, your Lordships' House may as well stop debating the subject of tax harmonisation because the Government have already filled in two-thirds of the gap in the tax burden between the UK and

1575
Euroland. When they took office, we had a 6 per cent advantage; it is now 2 per cent. No wonder that the noble Lord said that, "We should not overestimate the importance of the tax burden". I think that I quote him correctly.
The result of complexity is lack of transparency. The concept of stealth tax is well known—a new tax in a disguised form. But the current system has spawned an even more effective form of taxation hidden in the morass—economists call it "fiscal drag". Most people believe that the tax system now takes around 38 per cent of GDP—the record that the Government have achieved—but that is just the net effect of the system. The gross system collects a staggering 53 per cent of GDP. The citizen is then obliged to claim back 16 per cent of GDP—that is, £150 billion—in complex allowances, exemptions, credits etc.
The charm of such a large gross tax system—from the Government's point of view—is the scope it allows for hidden tax increases via reduced allowances. Under this structure the Chancellor can, and does, increase tax without ever announcing a tax rise. People just wake up one day and find that they are in a higher tax bracket, with the result that tax as a percentage of GDP creeps up invisibly. For example, the Government's recent Budget changes to income tax rates—the famous 10p starting rate and the 22p band—were dealt with in two lines in the Budget Statement, whereas another 42 lines were required to explain changes to allowances, reliefs and exemptions.
So despite the new 10p tax band the personal income tax burden increased due to the erosion of the real value of tax allowances; that is, allowances growing more slowly than earnings, leaving a rising share of personal income liable to tax. That is how the UK's so-called "strong public finances" have come about under this Government, not because of the "strong economy", but because this is the third year in a row in which government tax receipts have risen by more than double GDP.
The Statement illustrates why someone needs to carry the torch for transparency, simplicity and openness in the tax system. Your Lordships are well aware that the Parliament Act 1911 deprived your Lordships' House of any role in financial scrutiny. However, study of Hansard of the passage of the then Parliament Bill reveals that its raison d'être was the hereditary nature of the House of Lords. However, as the Leader of the House, the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, said after the passage of the House of Lords Act 1999 and the removal of the hereditary Peers, Your Lordships' House has become more legitimate, more democratic, more authoritative.
Therefore, many of your Lordships on all sides of the House have asked whether it is time to reconsider the role of this House in the country's financial affairs. At the previous meeting of the Procedure Committee of your Lordships' House, the Leader of the House said that we have to deal with financial matters the way we always have because we have being doing it that
1576
way for centuries. However, I doubt that the noble Baroness, of all people, wants to uphold the merit of tradition and precedent as a basis for future policy.
My reaction to the Statement is to look forward to the day when all sides of your Lordships' House can bring their formidable talents to bear to achieve greater openness and transparency in the country's finances and to lead the people out of the darkness of Plato's cave where this Government are so determined that they should stay.
5.10 p.m.
Lord Newby: My Lords, I start with an apology to the House. I cannot begin to match the references to Plato by the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi. Without denigrating the noble Lord too much, perhaps I may say that it would do many of us more good to read Plato assiduously than to listen to the noble Lord's speeches on economics.
I, too, join him in welcoming the Government's decision to repeat this Statement to the House. There are individual measures within the Statement which we on these Benches welcome. First, on the business tax side, we welcome the decision to extend tax relief for share option schemes. It has been an issue for which these Benches have argued over many years. We are pleased that the Government are responding to the change in the economy, in particular the e-economy, by extending share option benefits in that area.
Secondly, we welcome the proposals to simplify VAT provisions for small businesses. When VAT was first introduced, it was done in a typical Customs and Excise manner, with huge detail making an administrative burden on small businesses. If the earlier leaks to the papers—not of this Statement—are correct, the Government are moving more towards the system which obtains for small businesses in France and elsewhere. It greatly reduces the amount of paperwork which small businesses have to undertake in respect of VAT, without undermining the tax take.
I must also declare a personal welcome for one small measure in the VAT package; namely, the proposal to reduce VAT on repairs to churches. As a clergy's spouse, I see this as relieving me of a considerable number of fund-raising events to repair the church roof, and that is a hugely welcome personal prospect.
I express support for the proposals in respect of cutting world poverty. The proposals are relatively shadowy but I am sure that the Minister and the Chancellor are only too well aware that the one way in which the Government can spend some of their £28 billion tax or debt repayment without incurring inflationary pressures in this country is to spend the money overseas. We look forward to ensuring that that increase is not the odd £10 million or £15 million, but a substantial sum devoted to the improvement of healthcare and the provision of medicine in the developing world.
We welcome the environmental bias of the Chancellor's proposals on fuel. I believe that his motivation in respect of low sulphur petrol has more to do with shooting a Conservative fox—if that is not

1577
a politically incorrect metaphor—than with environmental benefits. I have two questions in respect of fuel duty. First, I understand that to be compatible with EU law the vignette scheme must apply to all vehicles and not just to non-UK registered vehicles entering the UK. I am not clear from reading the Statement, but will the vignette scheme apply to all UK-based lorries? Will they pay it? If so, are the figures which the Minister gave in respect of the benefits accruing from the VED cuts net after the vignette has been paid or gross before the vignette kicks in?
Secondly, while welcoming the incentive to low sulphur petrol, as other and newer fuels are introduced which lead to lower levels of pollution—one thinks in particular of hydrogen to power non-polluting fuel cells—shall we have some commitment from the Chancellor that those new fuels will receive a substantial tax benefit compared with low sulphur petrol? That will kick-start those new technologies which are available and would make a huge difference to levels of pollution but which need further government support and incentives.
We on these Benches believe that before today the Government's policy on pensions was parsimony with no purpose. The 75p pension increase last year was an insult to pensioners. Although we are grateful that the Government are at long last beginning to redress the shortfall in pension payments that that represents, we believe that they are doing too little, too late. I did not have the benefit of seeing in printed form before the Minister's Statement the detail of the Chancellor's pension proposals. They are extremely complicated. I hope that the House will forgive me if I do not comment on them in greater detail.
Finally, the disappointment on this side of the House is that the big issue facing manufacturers and farmers—namely, the overvaluation of the pound—has not been mentioned by the Chancellor in this Statement. He has nothing to say on it and nothing to offer. Will the Minister accept that the incentives proposed for manufacturing are completely inadequate to counteract the effect on the bulk of manufacturing industry of the overvaluation of the pound?
After all the hype, and on his own figures, the Chancellor is still spending less of the national cake on schools and hospitals than did the Tories, because of implementing Conservative Budget cuts during his first three years. Bust for pensioners, schools and hospitals followed by an election boom is not a prudent way to run the country.
There is much that we welcome in the Statement, but there is still much more to be done to rebuild the public services on which the well-being of all our communities depend.
5.18 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, perhaps I may check that I have only two minutes in which to respond. I shall do my best. If I have to, I shall shut up.
1578
I do not have anything to reply to from the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi. He did not challenge any of the figures in the Pre-Budget Report. He did not challenge the analysis or the results of the analysis. He said that the only growth in the economy is in government tax receipts. He did not seem to recognise that the reason that there is a growth in government tax receipts is because we are paying less on social security and receiving more in taxes from those who have been put back to work. If that is not a fundamental misunderstanding, I do not know what is.
The noble Lord complained about the complex tax structure; and of course he is right. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, recognises, from time to time we have to do something about it. But when the election comes I do not think that he will be going to the electorate with the banner, "Simpler tax". I think that there will be rather more important matters to refer to.
The noble Lord's final point was about the House of Lords, which he claims to be more legitimate, in order that it may have more time to deal with financial matters. If that is the case, why did the Opposition not wish to have this Statement repeated in this House. The fact that this debate is taking place was dependent on the Liberal Democrat Party.
I can treat rather more seriously the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Newby, although perhaps he will forgive me if, because of limits of time, I do not thank him for the praise which he gave to large parts of the Statement. However, he made some specific points to which I wish to respond.
On the question of the "Eurodisc"—the charge on lorries from other parts of Europe—applying on our roads, the noble Lord is correct: it will have to apply to UK lorries as well. But it is our intention to reduce vehicle excuse duties for UK lorries in order that they do not have any net increase in their burdens.
The noble Lord asked about newer fuels than ultra low sulphur petrol. I do not think that there is an official policy on the subject, but I am sure that he and I agree that it would be extraordinary and out of character if, having given tax benefits for environmentally beneficial fuels, we did not carry that policy on as new fuels are developed, although neither he nor I knows what they will be.
The noble Lord's final point was about the strong pound—or, as I think that he would agree, the weak euro. That is not an appropriate subject for the Pre-Budget Report, which is concerned mainly with the public finances. The Government agree with the European Central Bank that the euro is undervalued in relation to the pound. I think that the noble Lord draws the same conclusions from that as we do.
The Lord Bishop of Wakefield: My Lords. I am grateful for this opportunity to give a particularly warm welcome to the Government's statement on VAT and church buildings. Church buildings are part

1579
of the nation's heritage. They are maintained and repaired by the Churches, in particular by the Church of England, on behalf of the whole community. The statement is welcome because, while the Churches currently receive about £20 million in public grants towards the maintenance and repair of those buildings, many of which are national architectural treasures, they have a current annual expenditure on VAT of more than £40 million, nearly £30 million of which is paid by the Church of England. In other words, the Churches currently have to pay in VAT more than double the amount that they receive in public grant.
That unsatisfactory situation was recognised in a debate in the House in 1995. It forms the substance of the Eckstein report to be published later this month and has prompted strong personal representations to the Government by my colleagues the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London on behalf of all the Churches.
After years of difficult dialogue on the issue with both Conservative and Labour Governments, it is good to hear today's announcement, as far as it goes. However, there is still some way to go, as the Minister has made clear. The Government still have to refer the matter to the European Union. What will be the timetable for that? We need a timetable, not least to help in planning budgets and appeals for major maintenance and repairs and to ease the burden of fund-raising, particularly on noble clergy spouses—or is it clergy spice in the plural?
Will the Minister also give an assurance that, in referring the matter to Europe, the Government will continue their present level of commitment and press the case with perseverance and vigour? I repeat that the announcement is most welcome and the Churches of all denominations will be grateful to the Government for it. Our welcome and gratitude will be even greater when the proposals are put into effect.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for his welcome. I hope that he will not be disappointed, but the Statement was slightly elliptical. I said that the measure would cover repairs to churches, but I meant only repairs to listed places of worship. I think that he expected that, but I wanted to set the record straight. As to the timetable for getting the agreement of the European Commission, I can say only that we shall make an immediate application. The Commission has said that it will make no revision to legislation covering reduced rates until after 2002, but it has confirmed that
1580
it plans to report on the scope of reduced rates later this year. That is why it is important that we put our views on record as soon as possible.
The Lord Bishop of Wakefield: My Lords, in the light of the Minister's clarification, my warm welcome, though still genuine, is ever so slightly less warm than it was.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, would the word "tepid" apply?
Lord Boardman: My Lords, to what extent is the prior consent of the European Community needed for the Government's proposals to be carried out, apart from the question of repairs to churches?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is implicit in what I have said that the agreement of the European Commission is required for the change that we propose. However, as I made clear in my answer to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Wakefield, the European Commission is already looking at revisions to legislation covering reduced rates. There is no question of the measure being ruled out from the start.
Baroness Castle of Blackburn: It is obvious to all of us that this complicated Statement will require careful study before we can assess exactly what it means. I shall give some examples, on which perhaps I shall get some enlightenment.
I welcome the Government's recognition of the strength of the argument that some of us have been advancing for some years on the disincentive nature of means-testing. It is right to show concern for those who have been grumbling for a long time because they find that, having been prudent, saved, bought a house and got another pension, they are worse off than if they had spent the lot. I am glad that the Government recognise that we were right, but I should like the Minister to make it clear whether the Government have simply raised the ceiling, in which case the principle of disincentive remains. The Government talk about people who have made modest savings and modest investments in second pensions. No doubt we shall get enlightenment. Can we have a clearer explanation of whether this complicated Statement has removed the ceiling of disincentive?
One other thing puzzles me. I should be glad if the Minister could alleviate my curiosity. If it is wrong in principle to give the benefits of an earnings link all the way up the line to everyone who has invested in the state insurance scheme because that would absorb resources that should go to the poor, why is it in principle right to increase the fuel allowance to £200 all the way up the line? Have I misunderstood? Will someone with £20,000 or £30,000 a year get the increased fuel allowance? If not, where will that contribution to income be cut off? I am sorry if I am being dense, but clearly stated principles help to ensure good government.

1581
Perhaps the Government are finally acknowledging that we were right when we said that operating complicated means tests was much more expensive than just giving people a hand-out as of right. Presumably the Government's line of thought may have been, "Oh well, it would be terribly complicated. We would have to peer into people's coal scuttles and then ask them what their income was". Or the Government's argument may be that this fuel increase—this contribution all the way up the line—is only a little one. Therefore, their illegitimate child is only very small.
I should like to know what the Government's line of thought is. There are many other such queries that will have to be clarified and perhaps unearthed by questioning the Government before one can acclaim even the best parts of this Statement.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I certainly welcome what my noble friend Lady Castle says about the need for further consideration and further discussion. Within the limits of the parliamentary time available, my noble friend Lady Hollis and I will be happy to participate in that.
I suppose that it would be too much for me to expect a welcome from my noble friend for the substantial changes that are being introduced to alleviate and eliminate pensioner poverty. It would not have been in keeping with the way in which she has approached these issues. However, I believed that we had moved beyond the earnings link argument. I believed that we had reached the stage of showing that an earnings link applied to the basic state pension, which would cost £6 billion and would give £2 billion to those with an income of more than £20,000 a year; in other words, those least in need. I also believed that we had shown that the extension of the earnings link to those in need, as set out in detail in this Statement, is the right way to proceed. I still hope that we may reach agreement on that.
As to whether that proposal is out of keeping with the £200 winter fuel allowance, I can only say to my noble friend what she very well knows: 30,000 pensioners die every year, partly because of lack of fuel. Pensioners tend to be at home more, they tend to live in less well insulated houses and, in humanitarian terms and in terms of social justice, this move seems to us to be the right way to proceed.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, in putting my question to the noble Lord, I declare that I am president of the National Home Improvement Council. In that capacity, I welcome the announcement that VAT cuts are to be made to reduce the cost of residential property conversions and that tax relief is to be given to bring empty flats over shops back into use. However, I wish to ask the noble Lord whether, in the pre-Budget consultation period, serious consideration will be given to extending VAT cuts to home improvement in general, bearing in mind that such improvements carry the full weight of VAT at 17.5 per
1582
cent, whereas new build carries no VAT and thus puts pressure on greenfield development, which I believe the Government wish to contain.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, has made that case most effectively, not only now but over many years, and government must listen to him. He asked whether that case will be considered during the pre-Budget consultation period and the answer is certainly yes. However, the proposals put forward by the Government are as I have read out, and I am glad to have his modified welcome to them.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, declaring an interest as chairman of the St Albans Cathedral Trust, I wonder whether the Minister will accept the welcome that many of us feel for the measures in relation to listed church buildings. Does he also accept that it is very curious indeed for a sovereign parliament to have to ask permission from a foreign body before it can change taxation measures?
Secondly, does the noble Lord accept that, perhaps on reflection, he was a little cavalier in his dismissal of the complications which now beset every business, particularly small businesses? Does he accept that through the nature of this particular chancellorship it is becoming increasing clear that complication is an attraction in itself? Further, does he accept that increasingly not only are we small businessmen becoming tax gatherers for the Government but that disincentive to investment and, indeed, to investment in this country as opposed to other countries is now very powerful as a result of the extraordinary complexity in which the Treasury seems to revel in administering its relationships with small business?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords. I am grateful for the welcome given by the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, to what is proposed for VAT on churches. He will know that VAT as a European tax stems back to the Treaty of Rome, which his government signed, and that it has been consistent over both governments ever since. He will also know of the strong resistance shown by this Government and of their preparedness to use their veto against tax harmonisation when it is undesirable. In that sense, on that issue there should be no difference between the parties.
I apologise if I appear to dismiss the importance of the complication of the tax system for small businesses. I did not mean to do so. As someone who spent 30 years running a small business, I recognise how difficult it is for people to keep up with the complicated system. However, I still insist that the VAT form is the worst part of that system and that, in comparison, everything else pales into insignificance. I was responding to the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, who made a quite different point about the number of tax rates. However, that does not affect the problems for small businesses.
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, with regard to the freeze on fuel duty, is my noble friend aware that many

1583
of us particularly welcome the principle set out by the Chancellor that, in relation to the OPEC increases, if the oil price remains high, the fuel duty freeze will continue not only until 2002 but until 2003? That will act as a type of automatic stabiliser and is a correct, coherent economic response to the problem of the large OPEC increase, side by side with our own fuel duty, earlier this year. It will enable us to meet our Kyoto commitment as regards the retail price of petrol and will smooth out the volatility in the Kyoto policy that would arise if there were to be disproportionate OPEC increases.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my noble friend's comments, with which I agree, underline the importance of taking a longer-term view to these problems. He has emphasised what was said in the Statement: that, while problems in relation to high oil prices exist, the relief indicated in the Statement will continue, but not for longer. When the Statement referred to the representations made to the Chancellor, he, with his usual delicacy, avoided spelling out that those representations were being made by the Official Opposition and that they had changed somewhat over a number of weeks in September and October.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the Minister will agree that the minimum income guarantee increase is welcome to those whom it will reach. However, I am sure that he understands that the problem is one of take-up. In that context, can he tell the House how much money has been budgeted as the cost of the increase in the minimum income guarantee?
Perhaps I may also welcome the passage on page 5 of the Statement which draws the Government's attention to areas of high unemployment. Will the Minister agree that, in putting a contrast between old subsidies and new enterprises, there is an undistributed middle; that is, the future of those areas depends also on services such as banks, post offices, shops and, above all, transport? Will he ask his noble friend the Minister for Transport to bear in mind the phrase of my right honourable friend Mr Ashdown about Bristol Hartcliffe, that even the act of mourning only requires four buses.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the first question which the noble Earl asked is about the cost of the minimum income guarantee. He asked me to estimate its future take-up. Clearly, two factors will affect the take-up, neither of which we can fully assess. The first is that the increased generosity of the minimum income guarantee will encourage more people to take it up; the other is that any improvements which we can make in relation to simplicity—we referred in the Statement to being able to make an application by a phone call—also may increase the take-up. But we cannot say precisely how much that increase will be, so I am not able to answer that question at the moment.
1584
I am afraid that I did not understand the noble Earl's second question at all.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords—
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, on a point of order, I think the government side has already had 10, if not 11, minutes of our time.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, we do not have points of order—and we do not have any time left on this business.

Police (Northern Ireland) Bill
5.41 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Name of the police in Northern Ireland]:
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Serota): My Lords, in calling Amendment No. 1, I should point out to the House that if it is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 2.
Lord Rogan Lord Rogan moved Amendment No. 1:
Clause 1, page 1, line 8, leave out from ("shall") to end of line 11 and insert ("be styled as "The Royal Ulster Constabulary—Police Service of Northern Ireland"").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 3. Please let us for a moment reflect on why we are discussing the RUC name at all. The future name of the police service in Northern Ireland is being debated here today because some have mistakenly suggested that the current title "The Royal Ulster Constabulary" is a substantial barrier to creating a police service in Northern Ireland which reflects the society that it polices.
As I stated in Committee, the objectionable aspects of this Bill are founded on misinformation, false logic and a misinterpretation of the Belfast agreement.
Before the debate on Clause 1 progresses any further, I wish to address an important point of misinformation. Dropping the three words "Royal", "Ulster" and "Constabulary" from the name of the police in Northern Ireland will not—I stress, will not—solve the problem of Catholic under-representation in the police service. Dropping those three words will serve only to increase unionist disaffection with the manner in which the Belfast agreement has been implemented so far.
The Government are continuing to consider the problem of Catholic under-representation in the police service, first, in ignorance of the most significant contributory factors; and, secondly, in ignorance of information that points towards those contributory factors as being the significant contributory factors.
The Government are ignoring the issue of intimidation. The under-representation of Catholics in the current police service has been largely contributed to by intimidation. We all know that republicans

1585
intimidate young Catholic men and women not to join the police. When those young Catholic men and women, whose strong sense of public duty enabled them to overcome those obstacles so that they joined the police, the IRA then targeted them as a priority—a priority for murder. The IRA prioritised those Catholic officers for murder simply to deter any potential police recruits from their community and to deter other people from defying their dictates.
Without an end to that despicable intimidation, dropping the "Royal" prefix will not provide us with the high numbers of Catholic applicants that we all desire.
On Second Reading, I read a letter to the House on this very issue of intimidation. I feel it is necessary to repeat what I then read. The letter states:
"I want to make my position clear to my co-Catholics in this part of Ireland. I joined the RUC in 1971 when living in Derry with my mother.
My father died in 1964, leaving us a poor family financially. I joined the police to help my mother 'make ends meet'.
When a prominent republican heard of this, he and three of his 'henchmen' called at my mother's house in the dead of night and threatened her, physically, over my job.
She was told what they would do to her if I wouldn't resign, and her windows were broken to emphasise the point.
That's the type now in government, that's why Catholics don't join RUC. Pity these 'henchmen' don't have the background and good character required for the RUC".
That letter, simply signed "good Catholic", was published in the Irish News on 27th July of this year. Even then, the "good Catholic" was anonymous for fear of intimidation. Republican "henchmen" still offer that brand of advice to young Catholics and they still expect it to be heeded.
The Government are also ignoring the implicit discouragement by community leaders of the underrepresented groups. Indeed, those community leaders are apparently in ignorance themselves of paragraph 15.2 of the Patten report. Community and other leaders of under-represented groups have continually failed to encourage young people from their communities to join the police.
That encouragement is essential. As it is, that current lack of encouragement can only be perceived as discouragement by the under-represented groups themselves. The Patten report, in paragraph 15.2, stated the need for those community leaders to encourage under-represented groups to apply to join the police. Patten did not state that that paragraph was conditional on any other aspect of Patten. Indeed, Patten stated that the removal of all discouragements should be a priority.
Those who view Patten as flawless should contemplate what has been done since the report was published to achieve the removal of discouragements at all, never mind as a priority. We all know what the answer is and "could do more" is a polite version.
The Government are also ignoring the recent increase in Catholic applicants to the police service. As has been stated in this House and in another place, during the period between the paramilitary-termed "cessation or military operations" and the suspension
1586
of recruitment to the Royal Ulster Constabulary, Catholic applications to the police doubled from 11 per cent to 22 per cent. That doubling of applicants occurred despite the lack of encouragement from community leaders of under-represented groups and despite the continuation of intimidation and, of course, despite what we are supposed to believe is the major bar to Catholic applicants, despite the name of the police having a "Royal" prefix.
The Government are also in ignorance of the fact that young Irish Catholics simply do not avoid organisations with a "Royal" prefix. On the issue of that "Royal" prefix, I made my point clear in Committee. To my understanding, there is still no lack of young Irish Catholic sailors at the Royal Cork Yacht Club.
I mentioned a list of organisations in Committee, including the Royal Dublin Society, and I will not labour that point again save to note that the Sinn Fein leadership had no problem holding its annual conference at the RDS in Dublin in 1999. The venue of the RDS, or the Royal Dublin Society, was not a cause for non-attendance at that Sinn Fein Ard Fheis.
The Government are ignoring the unanimity of the Ulster peers in expressing their view in Committee in this House on the name change. Surely they cannot and should not continue to consider the name of the police service in Northern Ireland in ignorance of the continuing existence and effect of intimidation; in ignorance of the lack of support for under-represented groups from their community leaders; in ignorance of the recent rise in Catholic applicants without any name change; in ignorance of the polls in the Belfast Telegraph; and in ignorance of the views of the Ulster peers in this House.
We have a reputation in Ulster for speaking plainly. I am speaking plainly now. Please remove the blinkers and stop reasoning by a process of selective causation. Patten recommended a new name for the police in Northern Ireland. The amendments I am putting forward this evening offer that new, double-barrelled name. Patten recommended continuity between the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the reformed police service. These amendments provide that continuity, respectfully recognising the dedication and sacrifice of officers of the Royal Ulster Constabulary.
These amendments provide a means of dealing with the name issue within the parameters of Patten. They provide the best means of reversing increasing unionist disaffection with the implementation of the Belfast agreement and reversing increasing unionist disaffection with policing reform. Dispensing completely with the name of the Royal Ulster Constabulary will not significantly increase the number of Catholic applicants to the police. That fact must now be clear.
As I have already stated, Patten identified the best means of redressing under-representation in the police force in paragraph 15.2. Let me briefly remind your Lordships, and especially the leaders of under-represented groups, what it said. Patten stated,

1587
"We therefore recommend that all community leaders, including political party leaders and local councillors, bishops and priests, schoolteachers and sports authorities, should take steps to remove all discouragements to members of their communities applying to join the police, and make it a priority to encourage them to apply".
Just as strongly as I urge your Lordships tonight to support Amendments Nos. 1 and 3, I urge those leaders to re-read paragraph 15.2 and make that encouragement a belated priority. I beg to move.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, on 23rd October, on the first day of Committee on this Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, made a notable and courageous speech. In it he said that the debate on the precursor to Amendment No. 1 was really a debate about the constitution of Northern Ireland. He said that survey after survey showed that many Catholics support the constitutional position of Northern Ireland and that unionists now feel as he did when, in 1968, he marched in support of a campaign to secure civil rights for Northern Ireland under the Stormont regime. He spoke as one who still retained a bloodstained shirt from the blow that he received from the RUC on that occasion. He said that the unionists felt that their entire culture has been taken away from them; that pan-nationalism is ranged against them and that they have no one who can speak in their defence.
The noble Lord said that he spoke as a Catholic; that he spoke with a conscience, and he said,
"I support the retention of the name of the RUC'.—[Official Report, 23/10.00; col. 26.]
I recognise that there is a tendency among those of us who have lived for even a few years in Northern Ireland and sometimes less, to speak as though we know it all; and perhaps some of us know some of it. But none of us knows it as the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, and other Members of your Lordships' House know it who live and have always lived in the Province. I believe the noble Lord was right to say that this is essentially a debate about the constitution. No police service, in any democracy, can exercise authority save by virtue of the constitution of the state which it is there to serve. In the case of the RUC that state is, by consent, the United Kingdom.
The RUC therefore is a police service empowered by the Crown. So long as the Union persists, any police service in Northern Ireland, by whatever name we call it, will be and will remain a service empowered by the Crown. As the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, also said, there are also Catholics—no doubt they are in the majority—who are nationalists and object to any jurisdiction of the Crown in Northern Ireland. They continue to object to it notwithstanding the Belfast agreement, and that is their right. They will have nothing to do with the Crown in any of its manifestations.
So it follows that no police service in Northern Ireland empowered by the Crown will ever be seen by Catholics of that opinion as being "their" police service. I pick up the phrase the noble Lord, Lord Sheppard, made much of in his speech, when he spoke
1588
so helpfully last time about Liverpool; but nobody who feels like that will feel about any police service that derives its authority from the Crown that it is "their" police service. So they will not join it and in that regard the Government—I regret to say—are in pursuit of a chimera for so long as the Union persists.
Does that put paid to our efforts, which we all share, to add to the number of Catholics in the police? It does not. As the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, again pointed out, there are other powerful factors which inhibit Catholics from joining. The noble Lord, Lord Rogan, adverted to some of them. He cited hideous intimidation; the withholding of endorsement of that profession by the Catholic hierarchy and even by the constitutional nationalist party, the SDLP. He might have added the lack hitherto of the substantial improvements—they constitute about 85 per cent of the recommendations of the Patten report—which are now either already in place or provided for in the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, in support of his argument, pointed to the surge in Catholic recruitment to the RUC which took place after the cease-fire of August 1994 and to its ebbing away when intimidation seemed to be sustained and much sectarian violence also continued.
On that occasion no answer was put forward from the Government Front Bench to the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, or other noble Lords who made similar points. I, from my slender experience in comparison with that of the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, believe that there is no answer. As yet we are still invited to adopt a name in which the words Royal Ulster Constabulary will, except in the most formal of legal contexts, by the Government's own design and desire, never be used. The sole purpose is the vain hope of getting more Catholics of a nationalist character, such as I have described, to join the police service, and they will not.
The recommendations of the Patten report have elevated the issue of the name into most dangerous prominence and significance, and I wish that it had not been so. But we are where we are. Like the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, I am deeply worried about the condition and state of the unionist community in Northern Ireland. And by that I do not mean the extremities of that community.
The ferocity with which a change of name is demanded, and with no promise of nationalist support at the end—there are only threats of regression if a change is not made—has reinforced the siege mentality with which so many unionists have for so long been cursed. They see the name of the RUC as an incident of the constitutional status of Northern Ireland, and I wish that it were otherwise. They see the pressure for change as a denial of that status. They see the implementation of a change as a harbinger of the further and worse inroads that they fear. And until there is some beginning to decommissioning, they feel that they have had enough. Those mounting perceptions, and especially the loss of the RUC name, are deeply dangerous to the position of Mr Trimble.

1589
I have the utmost admiration for the courage, perception and wisdom of Mr Mallon in this long process. He is reported as saying that no one is indispensable to the political process in Northern Ireland. I fear that he is wrong. At least one man is and at this juncture it is Mr Trimble. It is now a political imperative that Mr Trimble remains in place. He could not be restored. I believe that that imperative now requires that the amendment be agreed to.
6 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, I rise to oppose the amendment. In Committee I introduced several amendments which went in the Patten direction, but this amendment moves further away from Patten than even the Bill proposes.
I cannot claim to have lived or to have worked in an administrative capacity in Northern Ireland. However, for the past 50 years, since I was a small child in India, I have read about Ireland and Northern Ireland. We forget that the entire issue should be seen against a background history of 80 years, not just the past 30. It is strange that a majority community which has all the instruments of power at its disposal has, after 30 years in an embattled state, achieved a good agreement—call it "Belfast" or "Good Friday"—but it is a compromise between the Republic, the United Kingdom and various communities in Northern Ireland.
Having achieved such a delicate compromise, people want to return to the status quo. But the old status quo did not work. It is not a question of whether the Royal Ulster Constabulary was a brave force of law. It was and it made many sacrifices. But, as Patten said, if the new police service is identified with the centre of political argument of Northern Ireland, there will be two consequences: first, whatever people say, there will be problems with recruitment; and, secondly, the service will not command the free support and loyalty of everyone in Northern Ireland.
It is not merely a matter of recruitment; people have to like their police service. Like it or not, the truth is that a substantial minority does not approve of the police service. They will if we move away from the past and rename the service "Police Service of Northern Ireland". I do not like the compromise of incorporation but I can live with it. We must compromise; we cannot return to the old position because that got us into all this trouble.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, I support the position which the Government have put to the House tonight. I do so recalling my maiden speech in this House. I said that I came from a mixed marriage of a Catholic and a Protestant. My late mother was from the west of Ireland and was an Irish speaker. On my father's side, my uncle died when serving in the RAF and my father served in the 8th Army. I said that you did riot have to hate one country because you loved another. The dilemma for the nationalist community in Northern Ireland is learning to love their police
1590
force; learning to like and love the institutions in Northern Ireland, as the noble Lord, Lord Desai, described.
In another place, I readily rose to support the then Northern Ireland Secretary, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden. He performed an enormous service in bringing about reconciliation and progress in the north of Ireland and I rarely found myself in disagreement with him. However, I believe that on balance the expectation has been raised through Patten that there will be a change in name and ethos in the Royal Ulster Constabulary and that if that is not now delivered it will in turn endanger the peace process.
I agree with the noble and learned Lord that the position of David Trimble is crucial and that your Lordships and another place must do nothing whatever to undermine his position. He is crucial to facilitating the process. I also agreed with the noble and learned Lord that we must learn to place ourselves in the shoes of those on the other side of the community. After 70 years of, certainly perceived, discrimination and prejudice in Northern Ireland, it has been difficult for nationalists to make a transition and to understand that there is fear, but uncertainty, in the unionist community and that they must make that transition.
In 1985 I served as a member of the then Liberal/SDP Alliance commission which examined the politics of Northern Ireland. Another member of the group was the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, who had given distinguished service to the British military, had climbed Everest and had also written a significant report on the reform of the UDR. Lord Donaldson was also a member of the group. He had been a Minister in a previous Labour government and had served in Northern Ireland. We were given wide access to all the senior figures in the RUC and the military in Northern Ireland. Time and again, while we were able to see the work that was being done we could see the need for change. Even at that time our recommendations called for a change in the name of the RUC.
As the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, rightly told your Lordships, the number of applicants rose after the cease-fire but has since ebbed away, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, described. However, approximately 93 per cent of the RUC remains Protestant, despite the fact that in the general demography of the population of Northern Ireland 40 per cent are Catholic.
The noble Lord, Lord Rogan, said that many other institutions have the prefix "Royal" in their name and he gave as an example the Royal Yacht Club. However, I put it no higher than that to equate a yacht club with the police force in Northern Ireland is to misunderstand the depth of feeling. I do not believe that that will help to dispel the mistrust which many people in the north of Ireland still feel.
When I was in the Province last week, I made a point of speaking to a number of people in the nationalist community and in the Catholic hierarchy. I read the

1591
speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, and felt that a number of points should be pursued. People in the nationalist community reiterated the kind of points made by the noble Lord, Lord Sheppard, in his first-class address in Committee. They said that the RUC did not represent or protect them and still believed that there was some collusion with Protestant paramilitaries. They still talked about the killings. They referred to the lawyer Rosemary Nelson, who was blown up as she drove to work last year, and said that despite all of the representations to provide her with greater protection none had been given.
Despite the bravery which the RUC has undoubtedly shown, not least at Drumcree and on many other occasions, and its commitment to duty and professionalism, the perception of that community is all. Until that changes it is difficult to see how we shall secure the four points referred to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, in Committee: political control, management, composition and conduct. It is difficult to see how one can properly and adequately bring those four points into perspective and ensure that the concerns which have always been raised become matters of the past.
Lord Laird: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Can he explain why the views of the Catholic community that he reflects are not also reflected in public opinion polls run by any reputable newspaper in Northern Ireland or any other body?
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, I hope that noble Lords understand that I do not seek to reflect the views of the Catholic community. I give my own views based on conversations last week in Northern Ireland. It was the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, who, from the same Benches, told Her Majesty's Government that since the peace process began the key issue was intimidation. If the noble Lord reads what I have said previously in your Lordships' House and in another place, he will see that I have regularly criticised the knee-capping and intimidation campaigns of organisations like the IRA to try to impose lynch-mob rule. That is wholly unacceptable. I passionately believe in upholding the law and a police force which does that by consent. I believe that that unites everybody in the Chamber today.
Last week I asked a Catholic bishop why the hierarchy had not urged members of its community to play a greater role in the police force. He said that the hierarchy had never asked people to join the Garda. I said that that was not in itself an adequate response, given the circumstances in Northern Ireland. I support the observations made last week that the hierarchy in Northern Ireland must do more to encourage members of the nationalist community to accept the police service and join it. They should be convinced that the service is there for all members of the Northern Ireland community and participate in it. Therefore, in these unique circumstances the Church
1592
has a duty to underline the necessity of policing by consent and encourage Catholics to play a full part in that service. Patten recommended a neutral name, badge and flag.
The Secretary of State made clear in his remarks on 15th June that those were issues upon which he would act. He said that he remained absolutely determined to implement the Patten recommendations and achieve an effective and representative policing service which was accepted by every part of Northern Ireland. He is right. I believe that the Government deserve our full support for the proposals that they have placed before your Lordships' House. In turn, they deserve the wholehearted support of the Catholic community and its hierarchy in the creation of a police force which can serve both traditions in Northern Ireland in a fair, impartial and scrupulous manner.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down perhaps I may put a question to him since he complained about the ethos of the RUC being unattractive to Roman Catholics. He advances that proposition as one of the reasons why proportionately there are too few Catholics on the force. Can the noble Lord tell the House what proportion of the Garda is made up of Protestants? Is it not less than 1 per cent, and should there not be some symmetry in these matters?
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, there is certainly symmetry in the arguments which I have placed before your Lordships' House. I hope that, although there is a much smaller percentage of Protestants living in the Republic of Ireland than there are Catholics living in Northern Ireland, nevertheless they would join Garda Siochana in the same way as I argue that nationalists in Northern Ireland should join the police force there. I refer the noble Lord to paragraph 17.4 on page 98 of the Patten report where it is said:
"Many people in Northern Ireland from the Irish nationalist and republican tradition regard the name, badge and symbols of the Royal Ulster Constabulary as associating the police with the British constitution and state. This contributes to the perception that the police are not their police".
That is the issue before your Lordships' House.
Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, I rise to support these amendments. I say to both the noble Lords, Lord Alton and Lord Desai, and the Government that their arguments sound plausible but are based on one major assumption. They are wrong to assume that, having changed the name, there will be increased participation in, and enthusiasm for, the service by the Catholic Church, the SDLP and Sinn Fein. Many noble Lords and Members of another place have said that the price for future recognition of the police force by those communities is the change of name. I beg to differ. That is an incredibly naive attitude. People hide behind the Patten report and say that it says this or that. Many things have been written down on paper which do not take place. Patten assumed that that might be right before the proposals

1593
were put to those sections of the population. Those sections of the population have said categorically that, regardless of the change of name, they will not support the proposals. Therefore, this is not a compromise that is of benefit to our community in Northern Ireland and will get us nowhere.
Like the Patten report, the Bill is divided into two parts. One is concerned with operational reforms. We are entirely behind operational reforms which bring us up to date with other police forces in the United Kingdom and enable us to learn lessons from other nations. There are also cosmetic reforms. The alteration of the name, badge and so on are straightforward cosmetic changes as the price for the involvement of that community. One does not buy something like that if one receives nothing in return. There is no reason why these groups in our society should fail to come forward, except that the new beginning about which the Government and some noble Lords speak is not the same as the new beginning in the mind of some groups, especially Sinn Fein, which control through the intimidation that people agree exists.
Their new beginning, which is not ours, means the continuation of racketeering, beatings and other criminal activities. Such activity does not simply occur on the streets of Belfast on a day-to-day basis; it is deep-seated fraud which will require an extremely experienced unit of any police force to tackle. What they want is the police service as it is now out of the way. If they achieve that they will continue what they are doing now.
That is what is happening, and until we realise it we shall get nowhere. Even the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, envisages a change of name. But surely there should be a return from the other side for these cosmetic changes. We cannot see anything in the near future, and we are nowhere nearer to it than when we started. I shall not return to the release of prisoners. They have demanded this and that and have decided not to play a part in the law and order of their own society because, through their corrupt ways, they want to maintain a hold on it. I support the amendments.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, I was unable to take part in the earlier stages of the Bill but, as far as I could, I followed the written word. Sadly, the written word does not always give one quite the flavour of the occasion. I rise this evening to support this group of amendments. It seems to me that there are two or three points which may be worth making. I hate to differ from the noble Lord, Lord Desai, because I often find myself in a good deal of sympathy with what he says on other subjects. But I think the point which he neglects is that the function of a police service in the United Kingdom is to uphold the Queen's peace. That is what it is there for: the upholding of the Queen's peace. Unless and until Northern Ireland is transferred
1594
to another jurisdiction, it is the Queen's peace which must be upheld. It is a police force of the state of the United Kingdom. It is not surprising that it should expect to carry in its uniform and its title a recognition of that fact. I find that wholly unsurprising. I do not expect the Garda to do so. I fail to see why anyone should expect the police force in Northern Ireland not to carry those symbols in its work of upholding the Queen's peace.
I hate to disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Alton, but he spoke of the nationalists' expectations which had been aroused by the Patten report. Quite so, but unionist expectations were aroused by the Good Friday agreement; not least the expectation that violence would cease and that private armies would be dismantled and their weapons decommissioned. Those expectations were aroused; they have in no way been satisfied. To move on and say that because Patten has aroused expectations, we must give in, we must give something else, is a one-way traffic situation. Of course, in a rational world perhaps the unionist community and the police force in Northern Ireland could be generous and relaxed about losing some of these symbols had they received anything in exchange for what they have already given up under the Good Friday agreement.
The noble Lord, Lord Alton, like other noble Lords, spoke of the desirability of a police force which could police by consent. But he knows, as we all know, that there is a minority in Northern Ireland which will not consent to any police force which is under the jurisdiction of the British Crown and of this Parliament. It would not matter what one called the police force. It would not matter if we re-christened it the Garda. It would still not accept its jurisdiction and its authority while that authority came from Her Majesty and the constitutional monarchy and the Parliament of this Kingdom. Therefore, I fail to see any evidence from our experience of the past years since the Good Friday agreement that making this concession to the republicans will make any difference whatever to their conduct—none at all. What it will do will be once again to disappoint and to anger the majority community which feels that the Good Friday agreement has not been implemented by the republican and nationalist community in Northern Ireland.
When we talk of the desirability of sustaining Mr Trimble and his pivotal place in the peace process, surely we do not want to do something else which will put him into greater difficulty with the unionist community which rightly says, "Why have we been betrayed in this manner?".
Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, will he not agree—to continue his argument a little further—that these terrorist crimes are not just committed in Northern Ireland in

1595
ignorance of the Northern Ireland police, but also in the Republic of Ireland where there is a police force which is loyal to the government there?
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, the noble Viscount makes a good point. Indeed, the crimes are also committed on this side of the water.
Lord Alli: My Lords, I want to support the Government's position on the Bill and to speak against this group of amendments.
I have spent much time over the past few years in Northern Ireland. It is a place I have learned to enjoy and its people are a people whose bravery I much admire. All my contact with the new generation of parliamentarians has shown me a generation of able politicians committed to making a real change. I have learned two things about the politics of Northern Ireland: first, things are rarely as they seem; and, secondly, there are no absolutes.
There is little we can do here to move the peace forward, but there is much we can do to undermine the process. If we load the Bill with unintended, unnegotiated amendments, we shall only upset this fragile process. We all share the outrage, anger and loathing at what sometimes goes on in the name of peace. But this peace process is just that—a process—and there are still important steps to take.
The Bill is a further important step. It has been brought before us to implement the recommendations of the Patten commission. That commission was designed to bring forward proposals which would produce a police service capable of gaining sustained support across all communities in Northern Ireland. The Bill is important and complex. It sets out a whole series of changes which will transform the nature and culture of the police service in Northern Ireland; none more so than this change of name.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in another place said that while he was committed to implementing the full recommendations of the Patten report, he was willing to listen to any constructive comments on the Bill itself. He would make changes where constructive comments were made. I welcome the fact that he and the Government chose to accept the new clause moved by Ken McGuinness. Clause 1 provides that,
"the Royal Ulster Constabulary shall continue in being as the Police Service of Northern Ireland (incorporating the Royal Ulster Constabulary)".
But also allows that it,
"shall be styled for operational purposes the 'Police Service of Northern Ireland—.
The amended Bill now offers a less than perfect way forward, but none the less it is a way forward. The new name of the "Police Service" signals, one hopes, a new start, a new beginning. Yet the full name which will be in the title deeds of the service keeps a link with the Royal Ulster Constabulary and all those who fell in service during the Troubles.
1596
I have said that we here at Westminster can do little practically to speed the peace process. In a very real sense it is the people's future and it is for them to make that future for themselves. However, tonight we have an opportunity to assist them in moving forward with a solution. We are—if noble Lords will pardon the expression—caught between a rock and a hard place. I am sure that all involved in the peace process will examine our comments and read Hansard with care. By the end of today we shall have put our advice and counsel on record. I believe that we shall have done our bit.
This may not be a perfect Bill. It may not even be a perfect peace. But we do not live in a perfect world. I urge noble Lords to support the speedy passage of the Bill and to leave it unencumbered so that those who are in the business of negotiating peace have all that they need to move forward. I wish them Godspeed in their endeavours.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I am a great believer in the letter of the law and what governments officially say. Perhaps I may remind noble Lords that in the Belfast agreement it was agreed that,
"it would be wrong to make any change in the status of Northern Ireland save with the consent of a majority of its people".
It then went on to say that,
"the power of the sovereign government with jurisdiction there shall be exercised with rigorous impartiality".
What we are looking at is partiality; the tyranny of the minority; and the effort to give one more sop to terrorists.
I should like to quote also from the security statement in the Northern Ireland Office Departmental Report. It states that the objective is to,
"keep security policy … under continuous review in the light of changes in the level of threat from terrorism".
There have indeed been changes—for the worse. Therefore, to make this move and to ignore the feelings of the majority of the people and of the experienced officers of the RUC is very dangerous.
I remind the House that, pragmatically, we on this side of the water need an efficient and effective police force. Although the officers of the RUC are loyal and highly intelligent and wish largely to get on with their jobs, nevertheless this issue matters greatly to them. It matters also to the Catholics among them who are not deterred from joining and who wanted to join, as has been mentioned, in the face of intimidation. It is wrong that, for reasons of political correctness and to please the IRA—that is what it is—we are trying to do something but are once more ignoring another important aspect of the Belfast agreement with which we are so often inflicted. It states:
"All participants acknowledge the sensitivity of the use of symbols and emblems for public purposes, and the need … to ensure that such symbols and emblems are used in a manner which promotes mutual respect rather than division. Arrangements will be made to monitor this issue".
We are looking at a symbol which really matters to the people who are serving in the RUC. Even if this change goes ahead and the force is required to have a 50 per cent quota of Catholics, there is no certainty that the

1597
IRA will allow anyone to join the RUC. One will there fore see a drain of highly efficient and experienced officers, who will feel that they have been totally rejected and their interests set aside in favour of a very, very doubtful quota which may or may not come in, and, if it has Catholics at all, may well contain "sleepers" who are there for reasons which will not be helpful to security.
I remind the House that Gerry Adams has said many times that whatever is done to the RUC he and his supporters will not recognise it and will not support it. The noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, also made that point. If they will not support it and continue to make it extremely dangerous to join, except with special permission, I cannot see the point of hurting and insulting indeed the majority in favour of a tiny minority which is utterly convinced that it will not co-operate. Therefore, I strongly support the amendment.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I wish to speak to my Amendments Nos. 2, 4 and 5, and to support Amendments Nos. 1 and 3 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rogan.
It has been a wide-ranging debate and we have heard most of the arguments before. What is sad is that progress is very slow. The situation does not change. Let us consider for a few moments the environment that pervades in Northern Ireland. How did we get to the peace agreement, the Good Friday agreement, the Belfast agreement, or whatever it is called? Why was it necessary? The main objective of the agreement was to stop Sinn Fein/IRA murdering people and to attempt to remove the motivation for loyalist terrorists to murder people. That is why we are there; let us be quite clear about that. Let us also be quite clear that this debate is not about one of the finest police forces in the world. It is about the name of a police force. Thanks to the Patten report, that proud name has been lifted from the force and put into the political arena as a football or rugby ball to be kicked around, unfortunately by politicians from all parties and several nations, with scant regard for the members of that proud force.
We need a police force in Northern Ireland. We have a serious crime situation. We have a serious terrorist situation, whether anyone likes it or not. It is vital that we have a fine, well-trained, well-equipped, loyal and neutral police force. That police force—what is today the RUC—has proved itself in recent years to be all of those things. I accept that in the days of my father and others in Stormont things were different. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, mentioned his maiden speech. I used Bernadette Devlin's maiden speech as a basis for my maiden speech in this House. I made the point then that she was right in most of what she said in her maiden speech. But the environment had changed. We had an equality commission and a fair employment commission. The environment over there had changed. There was not a need for that kind of uprising and trouble making. But, of course, the IRA jumped on the band wagon and attempted to pursue a
1598
campaign, which it did very successfully for 30 years, to unite Ireland by force. All sides have been protected and cared for by the Royal Ulster Constabulary.
The Good Friday agreement is about sharing. It is about an inclusive community. It is about bringing together various groupings who have been at war with one another and have been forced to create barriers between each other. It is about creating an all-inclusive society to live in this kingdom in a law-abiding manner. I suggest to the House that Her Majesty's Government, the Royal Ulster Constabulary, the Armed Forces and people in many walks of life, from those who work in industry, the Civil Service and quangos to those who serve in the police force, have worked extremely hard to bring about that society. Who has not played a part in bringing about that society? Who has so far given nothing? The answer is the IRA—the terrorists—and to a large extent, although I know that people will talk to me about Articles 2 and 3 of the Irish constitution, the Irish Government.
To return to my theme of sharing, surely to goodness, if we are to have an all-inclusive society, we must have one police force. And surely to goodness that one police force must consist of people from all the different quarters of the Province. We need people from Derry, West Belfast, Armagh, Enniskillen, South Tyrone and elsewhere to make that an inclusive police force. That is vital. What is stopping it? The noble Lord, Lord Rogan, made the point very clearly. It is the nationalist community and the Roman Catholic Church. I am delighted that many noble Lords and many people outside have, privately and publicly, put tremendous pressure on the Roman Catholic hierarchy in an attempt to get that changed.
However, the purpose of my comments tonight is this: the name of the Royal Ulster Constabulary will not make any difference to the content or the performance of that police force. If the nationalist and republican communities—who, as I have said already, have agreed to serve in one of Her Majesty's governments—are prepared to join in, why are they not prepared to share in the name? That is the nub of our amendment. A shared name allows those who attach memories to it, to whom it means a huge amount and who believe in it, to feel comfortable. Let us also incorporate another name, the "Northern Ireland Police Service", which is new and has been created in the new image of sharing and community spirit. Let the two names come together in agreement. Do not let them become belligerent, bitter, antagonistic and obstructive. That is of no use to anyone.
I do not believe that the total removal of the name of the Royal Ulster Constabulary is right A form of shared option is the correct course. In conclusion, perhaps I may lighten the tone of my speech by giving the Government a little piece of advice. Appeasement never won a race yet: "Bad horse, bred by good intentions, out of paralysis of will". The Irish people are a racing fraternity and they will understand that.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, it is clear that this debate goes to the heart of many of the issues affecting Northern Ireland. To me, it is a matter of great regret that in this House there is no voice to represent democratic constitutional nationalism for Northern Ireland. That would bring balance to our debate and would ensure that we were able to hear directly the voice of a large group of people in Northern Ireland who have serious concerns about the way in which their communities have been policed over the past 30 to 50 years.
If I were an officer in the RUC, my reaction to this debate would be, "For heaven's sake, get on with the Bill. Get it out of the way. We don't want to be a political football any more". The officers of the RUC, of whom I have met quite a few over the years, just want to be able to get on with their jobs. They do not want to become an element in party politics. They do not want to be kicked around by politicians, which has been going on since the Patten report was published; indeed, even before that. They simply want to do their jobs. However, as with all police officers everywhere, they want to be able to do their jobs knowing that they have the consent and support of the communities which they are policing. It seems to me as regards the average RUC officer, who is dedicated, brave and professional, that we are asking a great deal of them when we ask them to police areas of Northern Ireland where they are not operating with the consent of the people in the local community.
I understand that surveys have shown that Catholics are supportive of the RUC. However, they do not demonstrate support to the same extent as Protestants. Catholic communities do not have that bedrock of consent that ought to be in place in order to achieve good policing. Surely that is what Patten set out to put right and forms the basis of the Bill which the Government have put forward.
It was a great source of regret to me that, within hours of the Patten report being released—I was still a Minister in Northern Ireland at the time—shrieks and shouts of condemnation were aimed at it even before many people could have had a chance to do more than open the first page or two. That set the tone for a debate which has never been calm or sufficiently dispassionate to put first and foremost the interests of all the people of Northern Ireland. Set positions have made life in Northern Ireland difficult. They have also made policing in Northern Ireland very difficult indeed.
What matters here is this: so far as concerns policing, this is a battle for the hearts and minds of the vast majority of peaceful members of the national community. I do not believe that any Bill would persuade Sinn Fein or the IRA to say, "Wonderful. This is the best thing ever". But that is not the intention here. We need to address the constitutional nationalists; namely, the ordinary, decent, peace-loving members of the Catholic community. It is their support that we want for policing in Northern Ireland, because once their support has been secured, then the
1600
men of violence will be marginalised and those that do not like proper policing in Northern Ireland will also be marginalised.
I think that Patten addressed that intention very clearly and achieved a pretty good outcome. The Bill before the House is a reflection of it. What we want to see is a representative police service. As long as 93 per cent of police officers are Protestant, how can the average Catholic feel that this is, "our police force"? It is impossible to expect that.
No single proposal in the Patten report will change everything, and thus we have to consider all the detail. The right approach is to view the Patten proposals as a package. The different elements contained in the Patten report, as reflected in this legislation, can and will contribute to a successful conclusion. I believe that, once this legislation has been passed, it will send a clear signal to all the people of Northern Ireland that we are entering a new age when policing will be conducted with the consent of everyone. That will happen only when we get rid of the symbols, emblems and other items of a police force which indicate that it is not a force for the whole community. That is an important and worthwhile aim. A little vision is required in order to carry this through for the benefit of the people of Northern Ireland. That is why I feel that these amendments are wrong in principle and damaging in practice. I hope that the House will reject them.
Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, in speaking to the first group of amendments, and in opposing them, I shall begin with an observation. As the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, has pointed out, debates on Northern Ireland issues in your Lordships' House inevitably lack an important dimension. While the concerns of the Unionist community are given a full airing—and quite properly so—those of the nationalist community, almost axiomatically, are not so directly heard. The other place has at least the constitutional Nationalist opinion expressed by the three SDLP Members of Parliament. There is no authentic nationalist voice in our debates, in the same way that the British-Irish interparliamentary body is deprived of any direct unionist contribution to its debates because the unionists decline to participate in its activities.
I am neither pro-unionist nor pro-nationalist, but I think that it is important to stress the disadvantage under which noble Lords labour by not having nationalist opinion directly reflected in their debates in the same way as that of unionist opinion. As I have said, I am not in any way partisan as between any legitimate aspirations, be they unionist or nationalist, but I recognise the objective fact here; namely, the strength of nationalist feeling on the issues of policing in Northern Ireland.
In my time in Northern Ireland, I can honestly say that I never came across either a Catholic family or a Catholic authority that would encourage younger members of their community to consider a job in the RUC. I accept the fact of intimidation, but that is by no means the whole story. The name, with its distant

1601
historical legacy, is an impediment to Catholic recruitment. Members on all sides of your Lordships' House have expressed a strong wish to see Catholics serve in much greater numbers in the newly established police service—ultimately to the point where the number of Catholic police officers is proportional to the number of Catholics in the population as a whole. That will not happen, as Patten recognised, unless Catholic parents, Catholic political leaders and the Catholic hierarchy feel able to encourage Catholic recruitment to the police service.
A number of noble Lords have already said that a change of name is a necessary prerequisite for the new start for policing in Northern Ireland, based on the consent of both communities. Such a change need in no way detract from the achievements of the RUC in the recent past, but a change of name addresses the future purposefully and positively.
Lord Monson: My Lords, the noble Lord deplores the historical legacy of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, but does he realise that the RUC stems from the Royal Irish Constabulary, the great majority of whose members were Roman Catholic?
Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, I was aware of that historical continuity.
Lord Vivian: My Lords, I strongly support the amendment. Your Lordships may remember that I spoke to this issue at the Committee stage. I rise to speak to it again because I was not satisfied with the Minister's statement at the end of the previous debate.
With due respect to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, let me say at the outset that it is the Government who have turned the policing issue in Northern Ireland into a political football. However, I can assure the House that I shall confine my remarks to the amendment.
It would appear that the Government use the Patten report when it suits them but disregard it altogether when it does not accord with their demands. Chapter 17.7 of the Patten report states:
"We consider it important that the link between the RUC and the new Northern Ireland Police Service be recognised".
No real link with the RUC will be retained if we change the title, the cap badge and the insignia, and retain only the green-coloured uniform. Perhaps I may ask the Minister: where are and what are the links that will he retained, as proposed in the report? There will certainly be no linkage if the title becomes the "Police Service of Northern Ireland (RUC)". If the title "Police Service of Northern Ireland" without "(RUC)" is to be used for all operational purposes—working, public, legal, ceremonial, administrative, presentational and recruitment—and, as I expect, on letter heads, the name of the RUC will soon be totally and completely forgotten. It may be that that is the Government's intention. It may be that they want to ensure that the title of the RUC is totally forgotten.
The Secretary of State has said that introducing a dual name would riot be good for the cohesion and unity—and therefore the effectiveness—of the police.
1602
I totally disagree. Is the Minister aware that, for any organisation, a loss of identity leads only to low morale and inefficiency? Is this what the Government are trying to achieve at a time when policing in Northern Ireland is as difficult as it ever was? I have been a member of an advisory board for two regimental amalgamation committees over the past years. Unless the best is taken from the old organisation and included into the new organisation, the new body quickly becomes dissatisfied and performs badly. Surely this is not what we are trying to achieve.
As has been said repeatedly, a survey in the Belfast Telegraph some time ago indicated that 61 per cent of the Catholic community are not offended by the name and identity of the RUC. Many of this community strongly support being a part of the United Kingdom. It is intimidation that stops many Catholics from joining the RUC; it has nothing to do with the title.
I was not satisfied with the Minister's response at the Committee stage. It is for these reasons that I strongly support the amendment.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, the key to this debate is the assertion by those noble Lords who have spoken in favour of the amendments that if the name is changed to the one in the Bill, and if the "Royal Ulster Constabulary" is abandoned as the name, that will have no impact on the composition of the police force in Northern Ireland thereafter. If that be true, I would have to vote in favour of the amendments. I am sure that most noble Lords would feel the same.
However, it seems to me an improbable assertion—and it is an assertion. It is improbable in one obvious particular—namely, that the very passion with which the argument that there must be no change in the name is advanced, must surely beget in the Catholic community an equal and opposite sense that there is a great significance in the continuance of the name "Royal Ulster Constabulary".
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. My discussions, such as they have been, with Sinn Fein have led me to believe that it has little or no intention of recommending to members of the nationalist community that they should join the police force should the name be changed. Despite much persuasion and discussions with the Roman Catholic Church, its response has been the same.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I am grateful for that information. I would not seek to deny it. However, I would suggest that the view of Sinn Fein and the view of the Catholic Church are not all commanding in Northern Ireland. The fact that 7 per cent of the RUC at the moment are Roman Catholics is evidence of that; the fact that the numbers applying to enter the RUC have risen from 11 per cent to 22 per cent since the Belfast agreement is evidence of that.
I suggest that the best thing we can do in this House is to reach out to the majority of reasonable Catholics in Northern Ireland who have some mind of their own; who are influenced by the efforts being made on all

1603
sides to try to end these historic divisions. Painful though it is, I believe that Patten did not reach this conclusion in a quixotic frame of mind but on the basis of the extensive soundings and evidence that he and his commission had taken.
I think it was the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, who made the point that there is at present in Northern Ireland a massive amount of fraud, intimidation and criminality. Plainly, one element in the amelioration of that dreadful state of affairs has to be a more effective police force in the province. For those reasons, I am afraid that I shall have to vote against the proposed amendments.
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, at the Committee stage we spent some two-and-a-quarter hours debating this difficult subject. The debate so far today seems to have followed very much the same pattern as the debate in Committee. One does not make any criticism of that—it is a difficult issue—but I wonder whether it is in the interests of the Bill. There is still much to be done. Your Lordships will certainly wish to see that it is done and that there is a reasonable amount of time in which to discuss these matters, but perhaps the House believes—like me—that we should gracefully bring this particular discussion to a conclusion.
I do not know whether the Leader of the House can suggest any procedure under which this can be achieved. I do not think so. I think it is a matter for the assent of the House. If we were to proceed in this way, I suggest that, after the Minister has spoken, those noble Lords who have brought forward the amendments should make their final remarks and that we should then reach a conclusion one way or the other.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, the noble Lord said that he would like to draw the debate on the amendment to a close. I should make some little contribution on this issue. I have said before in the House that I am a Catholic. I hope that I continue to be a Catholic for many years to come or for as long as I live. So this is not particularly a Catholic and Protestant issue in relation to the RUC.
I want to address noble Lords on this side of the House. I do so with a great deal of sensitivity. For many years, as a Member of another place, I was involved in numerous controversial issues. On some matters about which I felt passionately, I was able to enlist many of my friends, some of whom were Left-wing and some of whom were middle-of-the-road. Many times, against the wishes of the government—a Labour government—we took our attitudes to a Division. People did not like it; they were very annoyed that we did so. Sometimes it involved 20, 30 or 40 Members.
That does not happen in this House. I say this with a good deal of regret—and I shall probably not be contradicted. There are many Members on this side of the House who agree with the amendments that have been proposed, and who would have agreed with the attitude I advanced on the Disqualifications Bill. But there is a Whip on this side of the House. Many of
1604
those to whom I refer—I know them well and have spoken to them on these issues—were "old Labour" MPs when I was in the House of Commons. I can think of at least half a dozen or a dozen who agree with the amendment. But, whatever they may think about the justification for the Bill, they will not be able to enter the Lobby in support of the amendment.
The same is true of the Liberal Democrat Party. I spoke to a Liberal Democrat yesterday who told me that he agreed with the speech that I made on the Disqualifications Bill. He said: "I should like to support you"—and he put it very crudely—"but we are in bed with Blair". Therefore, the support for the Bill on the Liberal Democrat Benches does not surprise me.
On this side of the House, there is the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and the noble Lord, Lord Desai—who takes an interest in Northern Ireland affairs; and I am grateful for some of the very reasonable statements that he has made. But apart from those two, there must be many Members on this side of the House who have an opinion one way or the other on this great controversy that has been brought about by the proposal to rename the RUC.
The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, has had some service in Northern Ireland. I do not know whether he had his tongue in his cheek when he said: "Isn't it a pity that there is no constitutional nationalist voice in this House?" I will tell him why. Although they have been offered seats here, constitutional nationalists will not come to this House. When I was a member of the SDLP, a constitutional nationalist party, there were some members of that party who took MBEs and OBEs; and, once they accepted them, they were dismissed and thrown out of the SDLP. That is one of the reasons why there is no constitutional nationalist party member in this House. I only wish that there were. I should relish sitting here with some of my former colleagues or other members of the SDLP who could advance the constitutional nationalist point of view. I do not blame this House for not being able to hear them.
I am a Catholic, as I keep repeating. But even my intervention in this debate will be grossly misconstrued by nationalist politicians in Northern Ireland. I recently made a speech in Committee on this Bill and the next morning I was the subject of nasty cartoons in the press. I was classified as a Unionist. I was almost classified as anti-Catholic, because I supported the retention of the name of the RUC.
Perhaps my reason for supporting the retention of the name is a heart-over-mind matter. I am prepared to admit that that may be so. But I have carried the coffins of so many RUC men who were killed by terrorists, both loyalist and so-called IRA. I met their wives and children, and I know how deeply they feel that they are being humiliated and demonised by Sinn Fein/IRA. I know how they feel. I was in their houses 10 minutes after their husbands were killed and sometimes five minutes after their fathers and their brothers were killed. I repeat—and, again, I received a headline in a nationalist newspaper for stating this—

1605
that, if it had not been for the RUC, Northern Ireland would have sunk into a pit of anarchy. However much I may be abused for repeating it, I shall do so.
Who is to deny that, without the courage and resolution of the Northern Ireland police force throughout these terrible 30 years, civilisation as we know it in Northern Ireland would have gone by the board? Only last week, a bomb went off outside a police station in Castlewellan. Two RUC men were grievously injured; one lost a leg and is in danger of losing the other. At the time, everyone jumped to the conclusion that it must be the work of the Real IRA, a dissident republican group. But the police were able to issue a statement that the type of device used in the bomb was from the loyalist community. So loyalist dissidents, representatives of loyalist murderers, are now intent on killing the RUC.
Seamus Mallon, who is a former colleague of mine, has said that if the SDLP does not get its way in the Bill, he will not call upon Catholics to join the new police service. I can tell Seamus Mallon—who is no foot—that whatever he may say, it will not determine one way or another whether Catholics will join the RUC. Sinn Fein/IRA control many areas of West Belfast, parts of Crossmaglen and many other areas of Northern Ireland; and the loyalists are in control of their areas in the Shankill Road in West Belfast. They are the people who will determine who will join the new police service. It will not be determined by any siren call by constitutional nationalists.
All the recommendations in the Bill could easily have passed a Committee stage in this House in half an hour. The RUC itself recommended many of them. No one is objecting to the reform of the RUC. It has been in existence since 1920. I think I have illustrated in this House how it came to be demonised by so-called republicans. But its name has a symbolism.
One Liberal Democrat Member has said that the symbolism of the RUC is offensive to Northern Ireland Catholics. But taking away that symbol will be offensive to Protestants—by removing the alienation of one community, we alienate the other. What does it mean to take away the name of the RUC? There will be many widows, sons, daughters, fathers and mothers who will be grievously offended if the name is taken away.
Again, when I spoke in Committee, letters were sent to nationalist newspapers saying: "Does he forget that the RUC hit him over the head with a baton when he was leading a civil rights march on 5th October 1968?". I do not forget that at all. O thought it very wrong of the RUC to attack me and others when I was engaged in demanding civil rights for everyone in Northern Ireland, Catholics and Protestants. But it is 30 years since that happened. Many changes have taken place in the RUC over that period.
I believe that the RUC as presently constructed, together with these reforms when they are implemented, will turn out to be a totally different force from what it was under unionist domination over many years. On Monday of this week, a Catholic ombudswoman opened up her office in Northern
1606
Ireland for the purpose of looking into complaints against the RUC. I welcome that development; indeed, the RUC's Chief Constable also welcomes it. The RUC is not against change that will make it a better and a more acceptable force. By rejecting the name, we shall offend many, many people in Northern Ireland. It will not bring support from that section of the community which has been so opposed to it over the past 30 years.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, all the amendments in the group that we are now discussing relate to the name of the police in Northern Ireland. All the amendments would change the current provision in Clause 1. I should remind the House that the clause that is sought to be amended was tabled by the Ulster Unionist Party in another place and was accepted by the Government.
All these amendments would mean that the police service would be known, for at least some purposes, by a dual name: the Royal Ulster Constabulary—Police Service of Northern Ireland. Much as I understand the feelings that lie behind that proposal, the Government do not believe that it is either a workable or the right solution. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has stated on a number of occasions the Government's view that introducing a dual name would not be good for the cohesion and unity and, therefore, the effectiveness of the police service. As I observed previously on 23rd October, I understand that that view is shared within the Royal Ulster Constabulary. Moreover, it would not be consistent with the recommendation in the Patten report.
However, perhaps I may emphasise that I fully understand the conviction with which many noble Lords have spoken on this subject. The Government fully recognise that this is a deeply contentious issue and one that involves, for many, a painful change. The Patten report recognised that encouraging Catholic recruits to join the police service was not as simple as removing the Royal prefix or changing the name. Of course we accept that paramilitary intimidation has undoubtedly been an important reason for Catholics not coming forward to join the police. Those who have done so in the past have paid a disproportionately high price in attacks on themselves and their families. I salute their courage.
However, intimidation is not the only reason. There are certainly other causes. They include lack of identity with the police; fear of loss of contact with family and friends; and lack of support and encouragement within the nationalist community. That is why it is so important that the opportunity is seized to create a more representative police force, and one that commands broad support across the whole community. Let us be clear about the prize. It is demonstrated by the words—important words—used in Committee in another place by Seamus Mallon on 6th June. He said that,
"we do not yet have a police service that can belong to all the people. That is what I and my party want to achieve, and we have striven to achieve that not in the comfort of debate or theory, but in places such as Derry, the Bogside, south Armagh, south Down

1607
and west Belfast … if we get the Bill right, I will go into the hardest parts of Northern Ireland and I will ask people to join the police service and to support it".[Official Report, Commons, 6/6/00; col. 196.]
Those words illustrate the prize, which will be in jeopardy if we do not implement Patten on this issue.
Noble Lords have pointed to surveys that suggest that the Royal prefix in the current title is not a major deterrent. Like noble Lords, I accept that intimidation has played its part. But Patten said that symbols associated with one side of the constitutional debate inevitably went some way to inhibiting the wholehearted participation in policing of the other side. It is important to understand his conclusions. He did not recommend either no change or a complete change. What he did say was that the name should change, but that continuity should be recognised. That is what Clause 1 of the Bill now represents—continuity and change. It spells out that the RUC shall continue as the "Police Service of Northern Ireland".
Some noble Lords have suggested that that approach dishonours the proud tradition of the RUC, or that it belittles the sacrifice that the police and all associated with them have made over the past 30 years. I want to assure the House that this is neither the Government's intention nor their view. Only yesterday the Government published the report by John Steele on the proposal for a new police fund. The Government made a very positive response. In welcoming the report, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State said that he hoped Mr Steele's recommendations would go some way towards recognising the profound debt that we owe to these courageous men and women, and their families.
I referred earlier to continuity and change. The continuity comes from ensuring that the RUC is clearly incorporated into the new service in its founding legislation. That is what Clause 1(1) and (3) achieve. The name of the RUC will also be evidenced in the RUC GC Foundation, provided for in Clause 70 of the Bill. Clause 1(2) and (4) provide the clear basis for change. As my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has stated frequently, the new name—the Police Service of Northern Ireland—will be used for all operational and working purposes, including whenever and in whatever circumstances the police interface with the public. Lest there be any doubt, I want to emphasise that police officers recruited following the passage of this legislation will be joining the Police Service of Northern Ireland.
The Government have had many discussions with a wide range of representatives since the Patten report was published. In all its consultations with the SDLP, the Catholic Church and other representatives of the nationalist community, one point has consistently been made to us: the name must change if we are to succeed in the task of achieving a more representative and effective police service. Doing that means creating a service capable of commanding the support of the whole community, and one which Catholics are prepared to join. That is the goal that the Government are working so hard to achieve. It is a goal shared by
1608
many—indeed, if not all—in the House tonight. In the Government's judgment, the amendments that have been proposed run directly counter to that objective. Although I respect the conviction with which they have been advanced, I would ask the House to reject this amendment.
Lord Rogan: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have said so much in support of my amendments tonight. However, I regret that I cannot accept the arguments put forward by the Government. I seek to test the opinion of the House. In so doing, I invite noble Lords to heed to the words of the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, rather than those of a certain Mr Gerry Adams.
7.18 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 99; Not-Contents, 198.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Astor of Hever, L.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Attlee, E.

Hogg, B.

Barber, L.

Howe, E.

Belstead, L.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Blatch, B.

Hurd of Westwell, L.

Bowness, L.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Laird, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Liverpool, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Burnham, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Buscombe, B.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Butterworth, L.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Byford, B.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Caithness, E.

Monson, L.

Campbell of Cray, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Moynihan, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Northbrook, L.

Colwyn, L.

Northesk, E.

Cooke of Islandreagh, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Craigavon, V.

Palmer, L.

Crathorne, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Crickhowell, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Rawlings, B.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Dundee, E.

Renton, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Elles, B.

Rogan, L. [Teller]

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Elton, L.

Seccombe, B.

Ferrers, E.

Selsdon, L.

Fitt, L.

Sharples, B.

Flather, B.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Fookes, B.

Shrewsbury, E.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Stewartby, L.

Glentoran, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hanham, B.

Strange, B.

Harris of Peckham, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Henley, L. [Teller]

Swinfen, L.

Higgins, L.

Tebbit, L.

1609

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Wakeham, L.

Wilcox, B.

Vivian, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Waddington, L.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Addington, L.

Greaves, L.

Ahmed, L.

Greengross, B.

Alli, L.

Grenfell, L.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Hamwee, B.

Amos, B.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Andrews, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Harrison, L.

Avebury, L.

Haskel, L.

Bach, L.

Haskins, L.

Barker, B.

Hattersley, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Hayman, B.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Hollick, L.

Billingham, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Birt, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Blackstone, B.

Hoyle, L.

Borrie, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Bragg, L.

Hunt of Chesterton, L.

Brennan, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Brett, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Brookman, L

Islwyn, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Jacobs, L.

Burlison, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Carter, L. [Teller]

Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord Privy Seal)

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Chandos, V.

Jeger, B.

Christopher, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Layard, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Crawley, B.

Lipsey, L.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Lockwood, B.

Dahrendorf, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

David, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Davies of Coity, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Desai, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Dholakia, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Diamond, L.

McNally, L.

Dixon, L.

Maddock, B.

Donoughue, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Dubs, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Eatwell, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Elder, L.

Methuen, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Mitchell, L.

Ezra, L.

Molloy, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Morgan, L.

Falkland, V.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Newby, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Nicholson of Winterbourne, B.

Filkin, L.

Nicol, B.

Gale, B.

Northover, B.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

O'Neill of Bengarve, B.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Orme, L.

Goodhart, L.

Oxford, Bp.

Goudie, B.

Parekh, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Grabiner, L.

Peston, L.

1610

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Simon of Highbury, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Simpson of Dunkeld, L.

Powell of Bayswater, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Puttnam, L.

Smith of Leigh, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Razzall, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B

Rea, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Redesdale, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Rennard, L.

Thornton, B.

Renwick of Clifton, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Richard, L.

Tope, L.

Richardson, L.

Tordoff, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Turnberg, L.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Roll of Ipsden, L.

Uddin, B.

Roper, L

Wakefield, Bp.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Russell, E.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Walmsley, B.

Sandwich, E.

Warner, L.

Sawyer, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Whitaker, B.

Serota, B.

Whitty, L

Sewel, L.

Wilkins, B.

Sharman, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Shepherd, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Sheppard of Liverpool, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

Simon, V.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
7.30 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 2 to 5 not moved.]
Clause 3 [General functions of the Board]:
Lord Archer of Sandwell Lord Archer of Sandwell moved Amendment No. 6:
Clause 3, page 2, line 15, at end insert (", the United Nations Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials, the United Nations Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms and the Council of Europe Declaration on the Police").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, a theme which ran consistently through the previous debate and through all those in Committee on the Bill was that we need a force, which is now being created—perhaps, more accurately, recreated—to be representative in its membership of all the people of Northern Ireland and in particular of both historic and cultural traditions. It should be a force which a nationalist can join without diminishing his credentials as a nationalist.
Throughout the previous debate and all those in Committee, noble Lords have expressed regret at the discouragement encountered by young nationalists who desire to enlist in the police. I share that regret. But those of us who wish the peace process well have two alternatives. We can regret it, leave it there, declare that the issue is insoluble and walk away. Alternatively, we can try so far as can be achieved to encourage the nationalist community—not the paramilitaries, as my noble friend Lord Dubs pointed out—in the belief that the force really is dedicated to

1611
justice without discrimination. Anything which will reinforce that confidence can only be of benefit to recruitment and to the peace process.
My noble friend on the Front Bench will remember that in Committee I moved amendments to Clause 3 to add to the board's obligations a requirement to ensure that the police comply not only with the Human Rights Act but also with international human rights obligations. My noble friend replied that the number of human rights obligations which exist as actual or potential obligations in international law are so legion that it would be impossible to monitor them all in any meaningful way.
Whether or not we have a listening Government, we have a listening Back Bench. Therefore, I have modified the suggestion which I ventured to make in Committee. I now suggest that there might be three specific international instruments, each specifying particular obligations and all of which, I hope, create standards which the Government would wish to see achieved and monitored. I am grateful to the Northern Ireland Commission on Human Rights, the Equality Commission and the Northern Ireland Committee on the Administration of Justice for the assistance they have given me with this theme and the measure of assurance they have been able to give me that it really would make a difference to the feeling in the nationalist community that it would be appropriate to enlist.
The United Nations Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials, the United Nations Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms and the Council of Europe Declaration on the Police consist of clear and specific recommendations. I do not believe that there is anything in any of them which we would not all wish our police to observe. If they were included in the Bill, I believe that it would achieve two things. First, I believe that any police officer of whatever rank would approve of all those recommendations if asked. But the problem is not when someone asks his opinion; it is when the pressures are on, when the situation is an emergency and when the chips are down that the test arises. It is then that words which they have been required to learn and note as part of their reading and training will register in what they do.
Secondly, if hearts and minds are to be won for the process of supporting the police and persuading their sons and nephews to enlist, this amendment would send a message which might help in the winning. I beg to move.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, I find this a somewhat offensive amendment. Once again, it seeks to bring aspects of extraterritorial jurisdiction into our affairs and I am in general opposed very strongly to extraterritorial jurisdiction. I am opposed to the way in which so many international bodies produce rules, laws and regulations which we are expected to observe without this Parliament having adequately discussed them and legislated upon them.
1612
I am sure that the noble Lord is right and that there is much virtue in many of the things which are contained in all these resolutions. I would much have preferred the noble and learned Lord to have set out all those good things in these resolutions on the face of the Bill. That would be the appropriate way for a sovereign parliament to legislate.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, I suspect that there is an unbridgeable gap between us. However, would it offer the noble Lord comfort if the codes suggested enjoyed approval not only in this country but also across the whole civilised international community?
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, I am not sure that the United Nations necessarily always speaks for the whole civilised community of this world. It does not do me much good to know that some of these resolutions have been supported by some of the most repulsive regimes in the whole of this world. Of course they will support them. They will not do anything about them, as we know. But I believe that good intentions of this kind should be set out clearly on the face of the Bill.
That is not just a matter of principle for me. It also reflects what the noble and learned Lord said. If the amendment is to have any effect, the words have to be clear in the minds of police officers on the streets. Can one imagine a member of the police force in Northern Ireland confronted with the situations which we have seen in Northern Ireland in the past? Standing there, suddenly there come before him, like the life of a drowning man, umpteen resolutions from the United Nations. He would see them all in his mind and suddenly know what to do! Of course he would not. But he just might if the matter was on the face of the Bill, having been filleted out and put into plain common sense language.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, I apologise for interrupting the noble Lord again. However, would he settle for having these texts set out in schedules to the Bill?
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, I would settle for having them set out clearly in the Bill, for us to legislate upon them and, if necessary, amend provisions, because I might not like every bit of the provision and this sovereign House has every right to object to some of it. I shall not detain the House longer. I think it wise that these points are made.
Lord Monson: My Lords, perhaps I may put a different question to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer. When he replies, can he tell us whether the police forces of England, Scotland, Wales and the Irish Republic are monitored for compliance with the various codes and declarations which he extols?
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, with the Minister I was one of those noble Lords who criticised the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, for the vagueness of his amendment in Committee. I acknowledge that he

1613
has listened to those criticisms. I agree with him that we all want and believe that the RUC—whatever it will be called—will follow very high standards on these lines. But I do not want to see them made into a statutory provisions for the reason that my noble friend Lord Tebbit summarised.
The police in this country generally, and the RUC in particular, are already subject to a whole lot of restraints. They are, I think, the most inspected, examined, monitored and supervised group of individuals that we have, with many bodies looking at theirs continuously—both official bodies and unofficial bodies in the media and so on. They inspect their every action, rethinking over a long period every split-second decision if it goes wrong. If we overdo that, we are in danger of making their lives impossible. We should also remember that the terrorists with which this particular police force has had to contend and may well have to contend again do not follow any remotely comparable codes. On the contrary, their standards are appalling.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the amendment raises the question of applying international human rights standards to the police. I concede that we have come a little further in identifying which instruments we are talking about. For that I am grateful to my noble and learned friend Lord Archer of Sandwell.
However, to give one example, the UN Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials refers to dozens of other international instruments. None of the three instruments specified in the amendment has been formally ratified by the UK or is legally binding in international law in the same way as is a treaty. The documents are aspirational statements. It is difficult to require in statute that the police should comply with them. It would also be difficult to identify the exact text of the instruments, because they are subject to change from time to time. We are still in doubt about exactly what standards the police are being asked to adhere to. That cannot be right.
Any particular issue in these or other instruments that could help to inform the standards that police officers should strive to achieve should be made explicit. I hope that I can reassure my noble and learned friend that we are confident that the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission will comment on the issue during consultation on the code of ethics. We cannot accept the statutory application of aspirational standards for the police rather than clearly defined ones.
We all agree on the need for very high standards to be drawn fairly and clearly to the attention of those who are asked to live up to them. This debate is about the best means of achieving that. I hope that I have been able to reassure my noble friend that we are at one in that cause and that he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, the amendment was an attempt to answer the problem that many of your Lordships have repeated during our debates:
1614
how do we gain the confidence of the nationalist community—not the paramilitaries—that the police force will be concerned with human rights and equality? The alternative seems to be not attempting to answer that question.
I understand the arguments. The noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, and I must agree to differ about the value of internationally agreed standards. This is not the first time that we have differed on the subject and I dare say that we will go to our graves on different sides of that argument.
I confess that I do not know how many police forces are required to observe the standards, for which the noble Lord, Lord Monson, asked. However, I am pretty sure that hardly another police force in the world is confronted with so many problems as the police force of Northern Ireland. If it is a special case, we all understand why.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Cope, if I were a policeman I would probably feel that I was a little over-supervised sometimes, but if I knew that the reason was that we were trying to secure the confidence of a section of the community that was currently doubtful about the force, I might consider it a price worth paying.
However, I know when I am licked. I am grateful for my noble friend's assurances. No purpose would be served by seeking to persuade her to change her mind. I am sure that her comments will provide some reassurance to those who suggested that I table the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.45 p.m.
Clause 6 [Provision and maintenance of buildings and equipment]:
Lord Molyneaux of Killead Lord Molyneaux of Killead moved Amendment No. 7:
Clause 6, page 4, line 18, after ("may") insert (", for the purpose of its functions,").
The noble Lord said: It is vital to protect the operational independence of the Chief Constable in all his decisions. In the current policing debate, the Government have placed great emphasis on considering the needs of the community—or communities, if one prefers it that way—that are to be served and seeking to ensure a policing service that is consensus-based and enjoys the support and confidence of the people whom it serves and protects.
To operate effectively, such a service must have transparency and accountability at its core. Under the current arrangements, while the Chief Constable is responsible for managing RUC buildings, strategy and general procurement, approvals must be sought from the Police Authority, which therefore takes ultimate responsibility for the provision of buildings and equipment.
The amendments would give that responsibility to the policing board, thereby ensuring the retention of the existing system and continued transparency and

1615
accountability. It goes without saying that the operational management of the buildings and procurement strategies would remain the responsibility of the Chief Constable. The amendments are non-contentious and are not motivated by party political considerations. They would reflect best practice in England and Wales.
Should the Bill remain as it stands, I ask the Minister to confirm who will enter into contracts on behalf of the police service, as it is my understanding that an individual—such as the Chief Constable—is unable to do so, as he is not a legal corporation, or, to be exact, a corporation sole. If that is the case, the policing board would inevitably have to be signatory to such contracts without having any accountability for them.
Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 would increase the policing board's ability to hold and dispose of land, not only for police purposes, but for its own purposes. That would be an important aspect of the board's independence, although it does not mean that it would be able to acquire land compulsorily for its own purposes. The power to vest land compulsorily should still apply only to land acquired for police purposes.
The current Police Authority feels that being able to decide on its own location and retaining the flexibility to change that location is crucial to establishing its independence at the outset. There is no logical reason for the new board not to be permitted to hold land for its own purposes. As I have said, that will not apply to compulsory acquisition.
I strongly urge the Minister to accept the amendments, which could only have positive consequences for the new era of policing in Northern Ireland. I beg to move.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, in his reply I wonder whether the Minister can clarify something for me. In the Patten report it was recommended that police stations built from now on should have so far as possible the appearance of ordinary buildings. They should have low perimeter walls and be clearly visible from the street. I hope that any amendment that is accepted will not give the board the power to do that to police stations until the security situation has changed considerably. I cannot help feeling that I should feel extremely unsafe if I had been taken into custody and knew that it was only too easy for a paramilitary force which disapproved of me to get at me a great deal more easily in an open, cheerful, villa-like building.
Lord Desai: My Lords, I rise briefly to support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux. In particular I support Amendment No. 9, which appears to put the police board properly in charge of certain things which I do not believe chief constables should be asked to do.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, after replying to the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, I shall refer in detail to the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Park. Perhaps I may reassure her, as I have done
1616
before, that all decisions taken with regard to security in Northern Ireland are taken in the light of advice given about the level of security that is necessary.
These amendments have been debated before and the position remains unchanged. Clauses 6 and 7 give effect to Patten's comments at paragraph 5.13 of his report. Patten said that the relationship between the police and the board should be as between a service provider and a regulator, and that the previous arrangement, which conflated those two roles, was seriously flawed. It should not be imagined that the board lacks the means to hold the police to account in this area. The board will have detailed financial controls and is responsible for the acquisition and disposal of land for policing purposes.
I can answer the detailed questions that were asked in relation to the point concerning control and power. Under Clause 7(3) the board can compulsorily acquire land for police purposes but not for its own purpose. It cannot compulsorily acquire buildings. The arrangements for the board in relation to land and buildings are different from those pertaining to planning. I can assure the noble Lord that under Section 5(6) of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998 there is no difference between the board's powers in relation to buildings and land. The board will be able to change location and will be able to enter into contracts on behalf of the police service.
However, the noble Lord's amendment, and particularly Amendment No. 9, confuses the roles by seeking to inject the board unnecessarily into the management of police buildings. It would insert unnecessary additional bureaucracy and there would be no additional effect on accountability.
The other amendments in this group, Amendments Nos. 8, 10 and 11, are based on the false premise that the board's powers to acquire land and buildings for itself are somehow deficient.
I hope that the detailed answers that I have given have helped to reassure noble Lords. Clauses 6 and 7 deal only with police buildings, and paragraph 1(2) of Schedule 1 to the Bill deals with the board in respect of these matters. I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, that there is no legal difficulty in the board providing its own land and buildings. If the noble Lord has further detailed factual questions that he wishes to raise, I shall of course be happy to write to him. I hope that he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, perhaps I may take her back to what she said a few minutes ago in reply to my noble friend Lady Park. She said that all security decisions are taken in the light of security advice from the relevant authorities. Perhaps I may press her a little on that point. During the time that I had responsibility in Northern Ireland, the formula universally employed was in conformity with security advice. Perhaps I may ask her—she may need a little time to consider this—whether the same applies today. In particular, will that

1617
formulation in conformity apply to the surveillance powers along the border in County Fermanagh and South Armagh?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I can assure the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, that changes to buildings are described in exactly the same way as are issues relating to security advice. All judgments taken by the Secretary of State are based on the best possible advice—in particular, that of the Chief Constable.
The noble and learned Lord pressed me on the exact wording of the legislation with regard to the procedure for accepting advice. I should prefer to write to him on that narrow and extremely important point.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, I believe that the Minister has given me the assurance that I need. It is not a matter of legislation; it is simply a matter of practice. If, on reflection, the noble Baroness finds that that is not the case, I should be most grateful to hear from her.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for the enlightenment that she has provided. However, as she herself said, this is a very complex matter. Although I entirely accept most of what she said, I have a feeling that the issues are not quite clearly understood by the various elements involved in these matters. I shall certainly study carefully in Hansard what the noble Baroness said. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 not moved.]
Clause 7 [Acquisition and disposal of land by Board]:
[Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 not moved.]
Clause 12 [Accounts and audit]:
Baroness Harris of Richmond Baroness Harris of Richmond moved Amendment No. 12:
Leave out Clause 12 and insert the following new clause—

Police (Northern Ireland) Bill

  ACCOUNTS AND AUDIT
  (" .—(1) The Policing Board shall—

  (a) keep proper accounts and proper records in relation to the accounts; and

  (b) prepare a statement of accounts in respect of each financial year.

  (2) The Board may delegate to the Chief Constable, or another body approved by the Secretary of State, responsibility for the functions under subsection (1).
  (3) The statement of accounts shall contain such information and shall be in such a form as the Secretary of State may determine.
  (4) The Chief Constable or any other body to whom power is delegated under subsection (2), shall submit the statement of accounts to the Board within such period after the end of the financial year to which they relate as the Board may determine.
  (5) The Board shall send copies of the statement of accounts to the Secretary of State and the Comptroller and Auditor General within such further period as the Secretary of State may determine.
  (6) The Comptroller and Auditor General shall—
  1618

  (a) examine, certify and report on each statement of accounts received by him under this section; and

  (b) lay copies of the statement of accounts and of his report before each House of Parliament.").

  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 12 stands in my name and those of other noble Lords. I raised this issue in Committee, but it is such an important matter that I feel I must bring it to your Lordships' attention again.
  My concern is to ensure that transparency and accountability exist in relation to police expenditure. The Government said that Patten was critical of the existing financial arrangements. Patten was critical—and rightly so—of the authority's role in supplying services directly to the RUC. However, that all changed under the 1998 Act. Since then, the role of the police authority has been the same as that of police authorities in England and Wales.
  Under the Government's proposals, the police budget will pass through the police board. However, it seems that the board will not have overall financial responsibility. I should welcome the Government's assurance that under the new arrangements there will be a code of financial management which is as robust as the code which is currently in place. In particular, will the new code recognise, as Patten recommended in paragraph 6.46, the importance of the board having a strong internal audit department? That will be essential if the board is to fulfil a proper scrutiny role in ensuring that money is properly spent and that the force is making the most efficient and effective use of resources.
  However, if, as the Government propose, the Chief Constable is responsible for the preparation of accounts, he will surely need his own internal audit function. Will that not lead to duplication? Is that really a good use of public funds?
  In Committee, I asked who would enter into contracts, given that the Chief Constable is not a corporate body. If it is to be the policing board—I am not sure what else it could be—should not the board be accountable for that expenditure?
  I am convinced that we all want to achieve the same end: to give the Chief Constable responsibility for day-to-day financial management and for the hoard to have a strategic role and to hold the Chief Constable to account for the use of those resources. But if the board is to exercise that important oversight, then, to my mind, it must have responsibility for accounts, along with the Chief Constable, as Patten recommended in paragraph 6.47. I beg to move.
  8 p.m.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, Amendment No. 12 has been debated before in Committee. Clause 12 addresses the important but detailed issues of police accounting and audit arrangements. We are extremely grateful for the assistance that the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, has provided to us in discussing the detail of those important arrangements.

  1619
  Amendment No. 12 requires the board, as the noble Baroness very fairly said, rather than the Chief Constable, to keep proper accounts and records but enables the board to delegate its functions if it chooses to do so. That would continue the present position, whereby the policing board's chief executive is the accounting officer for the police grant as well as the authority's own grant which Patten said should be changed in his 43rd recommendation.
  The Government introduced the change recommended by Patten to require the Chief Constable to sign off the accounts in respect of the money he receives from the board. The Government support Patten's recommendation because it contributes to clarifying the role of the Chief Constable as the manager of the police service and the board as regulator.
  Clause 12 still requires the Chief Constable to submit his accounts to the board (not the Secretary of State) and Clause 12(2) makes it clear that the function is being exercised by the Chief Constable on behalf of the board. The board is not circumvented; its financial accountability role is not diminished; and it can still scrutinise the police accounts to a level it considers appropriate to discharge its duties. I assure the noble Baroness that there will be a code of financial management as robust as the present one. I assure her also that the Government intend the board to have a strong internal audit role. Indeed, the best value provisions of the Bill will enhance the board's ability to assess whether police expenditure is being made effectively, efficiently and economically.
  The board does not need to do the actual detailed record-keeping to exercise its role of financial accountability in respect of the police. The Chief Constable, under Clause 10, will have to submit estimates of police expenditure to the board for its approval. The money, under Clause 9, goes to the board to distribute to the Chief Constable and it will exercise detailed financial controls in doing so as the Police Authority for Northern Ireland does at present. That is not an arrangement which leaves the board without power. On the contrary it gives it control, which is one of the critical issues.
  I would also quote the Chief Constable's useful comments in response to Patten's Recommendation 43 which were as follows:
  "No objection, although this recommendation seems to be on the basis that the Commission regards such an arrangement as improving visible accountability. Under current arrangements the Chief Constable already formally signs off final police accounts. These are then consolidated with the Police Authority accounts and signed off by the Chief Executive, as the sub-accounting officer. As the police budget will continue to be delivered through the Police Board and this is the body to whom the Chief Constable is primarily financially accountable, no change is anticipated in the process whereby end of year accounts are submitted through the Board. It is accepted that the proposed arrangements introduce a formal process, through which the Chief Constable might be called before the Public Accounts Committee, although he undoubtedly could be so called under present arrangements".
  1620
  Noble Lords will see from that response that the Chief Constable does not believe that his financial accountability to the board is diminished by this change.
  In a moment, I shall deal with the Chief Constable contracting out, or who contracts, which is a question that I must answer in the course of my remarks.
  That change, albeit a small one, is part of the new beginning recommended by Patten. We must move forward and not simply stick to current arrangements because that is the way that things have always been done.
  As to who will enter into contracts with the Chief Constable, the board will sign contracts for the police as the Police Authority for Northern Ireland does at present.
  I am extremely grateful to the noble Baroness for raising those issues and, as I said before, for the genuine assistance which she has given, which we have found very helpful. I hope that she will read the detailed response that I have given in relation to this amendment and that, in the mean time, she will withdraw it.
  Baroness Harris of Richmond: My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister's response. I shall indeed read with great care the response that he has given. It goes some way towards making sure that the code will be as robust as the present one—he has reassured me on that point—and that there will be an internal audit role for the policing board.
  I shall read what the noble and learned Lord said with great care. I thank him for his very kind remarks. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 15 [Default of council]:
  Lord Cooke of Islandreagh Lord Cooke of Islandreagh moved Amendment No. 13:
  Clause 15, page 8, line 8, leave out ("section 14(1)") and insert ("any part of Part III of this Act").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 14, 15, 16 and 20. Those all concern the district councils and the district policing partnerships. They have a single purpose; namely, to ensure that the councils and the district policing partnerships carry out what they are intended to do and, if they fail to do so, that there is some recourse. In its present form, the Bill does not achieve that to the extent necessary.
  Amendment No. 13 is designed to strengthen Clause 15. As it stands, the Secretary of State can compel a district council to rectify a default only if that council has failed to comply with the provisions of Clause 14(1) or Schedule 3. Our amendment seeks to change that.
  Amendments Nos. 14, 15, 16 and 20 relate to Clause 16 which is concerned with the general functions of the district policing partnerships. Amendment No. 14 is based largely on the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. I believe that it is positive to have the district policing

  1621
  partnerships obligated to formulate a strategy for the reduction of crime and disorder. Surely it is important that that should be done.
  Like Amendment No. 14, Amendment No. 16 is drawn from the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, applicable in England and Wales. What objections does the Minister have to increasing the role of district policing partnerships in that positive manner?
  Amendment No. 15 is a consequence of my objection to policing partnerships in the future acquiring a budget to enlist private security firms for policing functions. That should not happen.
  Amendment No. 20 relates to Clause 18 and is, again, in the same vein. If a DPP fails to meet any of its obligations under this clause, the board shall make such an order as it deems necessary to ensure that it complies with its duties in that regard.
  The amendments have been tabled for a particular reason. It is known that some of those district councils are within areas where councillors will be representing one side or another, or one paramilitary side or another. They may well wish to carry out those actions which suit them and distort the working of the police in their area. These amendments are tabled simply to ensure that if they do that, they can be brought to book by the police board. I hope that the amendments will be approved by the House and that the Minister will look at them favourably. I beg to move.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, Amendment No. 13 would enable the Secretary of State to act if a council was in default under any part of Part III, instead of the current provision which gives the Secretary of State default powers on appointments.
  Amendment No. 20 would enable the board to make an order requiring the DPP to comply with its report-making responsibilities. The amendments seek to place what we regard as undue control in the hands of the Secretary of State or the board. The Government sought to put proportionate safeguards in the Bill, bearing in mind theconsultative and explanatory nature of these bodies, and the amendments would not meet that test. They are overbearing.
  For example, proportionate safeguards include the fact that appointments will be properly made or there is a default provision; appointments are to be made by the board, not councils; the board will be required (if government Amendments Nos. 23 and 24 are accepted) to issue a code of practice; if DPP members fail to comply with their terms of appointment or are unable or unfit to discharge their functions, the board, or the council with the approval of the board, may remove them under Schedule 3, paragraph 7. As the Government said in Committee, we recognise the concerns raised about DPPs and have therefore put in place safeguards where we believe them to be necessary and justified.
  Amendments Nos. 14 and 16 seek to place a responsibility on DPPs to formulate crime and disorder strategies in their areas. While the Government have sympathy with the need to tackle crime and disorder in a more strategic way, our
  1622
  position is that set out when responding to Patten on 19th January; that is, that DPPs will not be given a wider community safety role until decisions have been taken on the Criminal Justice Review. The Government are still considering the detailed responses to consultation and will make a further announcement in due course.
  Amendment No. 15 has not yet been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, and therefore I shall not deal with it. Amendment No. 17 would require a DPP to comply with the board's code of practice. DPPs are governed, even if there was no guidance, by their statutory functions. Guidance can only explain the functions. The Government do not think it right that the guidance should be prescriptive. Although a matter for the board, we anticipate that it may well apply differently to different DPPs. So in Belfast or Lisburn, for example, it may comment on the need to have local consultative arrangements involving solely business interests. There may not be such a need in every DPP area.
  The other amendments in this group have not yet been moved and I shall therefore not address them at this time. In the light of my remarks, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
  8.15 p.m.
  Lord Laird: My Lords, I listened to the noble and learned Lord with care and am pleased to note that in one instance he will be issuing a statement later. I hope that in due course the Government do not wish they had accepted some of these amendments, because they may have trouble with the DPPs. But that will be their problem. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 13A not moved.]
  Clause 16 [General functions of the Board]:
  [Amendments Nos. 14 to 19 not moved.]
  Clause 18 [Reports by district policing partnership to Board]:
  [Amendment No. 20 not moved.]
  Clause 19 [Code of practice for district policing partnerships]:
  The Deputy Speaker (Lord Skelmersdale): My Lords, in calling Amendment No. 21 I have to inform the House that if it is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 22.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 21:
  Clause 19, page 9, line 32, leave out ("may, with the consent of the Secretary of State.") and insert ("shall").
  The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 21, it may be convenient also for me to speak to Amendments Nos. 22 to 26.
  In Committee on 23rd October the Government accepted in principle an amendment tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Cooke, Lord Rogan, Lord Laird and Lord Molyneaux, placing a requirement on the policing board to issue a code of practice to DPPs.

  1623
  Amendments Nos. 21, 23 and 24 give effect to that change. Amendment No. 24 also seeks to meet concerns about the overpowering role of the Secretary of State in consenting to the code. That has been changed to agreement.
  Amendment No. 22 is on the same point as my Amendment No. 21. I will not deal with Amendments Nos. 25 and 26 until they are spoken to later. I beg to move.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, the amendment standing in my name and that of my noble friend is subsumed in the Government's amendment. We are grateful for that and I do not intend to move it.
  Lord Laird: My Lords, noting the Government's Amendments Nos. 21 and 23, we appreciate the consideration given to the arguments that we pressed in Committee and will not be pursuing our Amendment No. 22.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 22 not moved.]
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendments Nos. 23 and 24:
  Clause 19, page 9, line 33, after ("and") insert ("may").
  Clause 19, page 9, line 34, at end insert—
  ("( ) The Board shall obtain the agreement of the Secretary of State before issuing a code of practice, or revised code of practice, under this section.").
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 25 not moved.]
  Lord Laird Lord Laird moved Amendment No. 26:
  Clause 19, page 10, line 17, at end insert—
  ("( ) Nothing in this section shall require a district commander or his nominee to answer any question or disclose any information which conflicts with the general duty of police officers under section 32 of this Act.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, nothing in Clause 19 should require a district commander to answer questions or disclose information that would compromise his general duty as an officer. When one reads the general duties of a police officer in Clause 32, one sees they involve protecting life and property, preserving order and preventing crime.
  We cannot at this point be certain that all DPPs will have the desired goal of facilitating community consultation and reducing crime within the district in partnership with the police services. Therefore Amendment No. 26 provides protection to sensitive information of which the district commander may have knowledge and protects against DPPs or members of DPPs who wish to use their position for destructive rather than constructive purposes. I beg to move.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, this amendment seeks to protect the police from being
  1624
  required to answer questions or to disclose information which would breach their general duty in Clause 32.
  In Committee I explained that, while I expect the police to work with DPPs—indeed, I am sure they will want to do that—they are not required by the Bill to breach their duty in their dealings with them. The bodies are consultative and explanatory; there are no obligations on officers to answer specific questions. In the light of that explanation, I hope the noble Lord will not feel the need to press the amendment.
  Lord Monson: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, is there any harm in having a belt and braces safeguard by accepting the amendment?
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, it is not necessary under the terms of the Bill.
  Lord Laird: My Lords, I listened carefully to what the noble and learned Lord said and will not press this amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 20 [Police districts]:
  Lord Rogan Lord Rogan moved Amendment No. 27:
  Clause 20, page 10, line 22, leave out (", other than Belfast,").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 27 I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 28 and 29.
  As I have said before, there are many aspects of Patten and of the Bill which are positive, particularly those of an operational nature, and I have no difficulty in supporting them. However, there are areas of the Bill which I believe to be fundamentally flawed and which will not produce an effective police force. The proposal that Belfast should be divided into four district policing partnerships falls into that category.
  These amendments are designed to rectify that and to ensure that policing the City of Belfast is not balkanised into four sub-divisions, which sadly afflict too many parts of the city of which I am proud to be a citizen.
  In mainland terms Belfast is not particularly large; there are no more than 300,000 or so electors. While Belfast may currently be divided by the RUC into four local areas of command, they do not mirror the four parliamentary constituencies and they extend out far beyond the city boundaries.
  I have no doubt that 300,000 could be more effectively and efficiently served by one police local area command. I am concerned about the likely consequences which would follow the establishment of four local area commands in Belfast. Those four commands will all be mirrored, monitored, potentially dominated and influenced by district policing partnerships. Four for Belfast is just too many.
  At grass-roots level, the police would be put under intolerable sectarian and party-political pressures. If anyone doubts that, let them imagine for a moment just how the recent loyalist paramilitary feud in the

  1625
  Shankhill area and more recently in other parts of north Belfast might have been policed if policing was subject to local policing boards. The political representatives of the UVF and the UDA would have used their positions on the north Belfast subcommittee to bring pressure to bear on the police to take sides in their own internecine feud.
  One can scarcely imagine just how keenly the paramilitary front parties would support the police in their attempts to crack down on drug dealing and racketeering. Furthermore, the west Belfast subcommittee of the DPP would be almost exclusively republican nationalists; effectively Sinn Fein/IRA. Just how would that square with police investigations into the recent murders in that area allegedly carried out by their allies and the Provisional IRA?
  In a similar vein, the east Belfast DPP sub-committee would be almost exclusively loyalist and unionist; again with a substantial degree of input from the UDA and the UVF. The religious and political mix in the south of the city, an area in which I live, would at least ensure some measure of cross-community representation on the DPP sub-committee for that area, but there is no question that a city-wide committee would provide the best opportunity for diluting the insidiousness of the paramilitaries.
  A Belfast-wide district policing partnership would dilute the influence of parties whose support is concentrated in particular areas. While Sinn Fein/IRA might have near 70 per cent support in west Belfast, the figure is much lower across the city. Just as it would be wrong to leave policing in west Belfast in the hands of republicans, so it would be wrong to place policing in east Belfast in the hands of loyalists. The decent law-abiding citizens of these areas should not and cannot be abandoned to their fate—and what a fate it would be if we allowed that to happen.
  Perhaps I may leave your Lordships with this thought: the City of Belfast is divided enough as it is. It is scarred by peace lines and sectarian ghettos. Just about the last thing it needs is a police force divided into four and under the control of the malevolent forces which deal in the violence, fear and terror which have cursed its streets for too long. I beg to move.
  Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, I rise briefly to support the amendment. I believe that the police district commands, as they were taken on from Great Britain police forces, are defined as being areas which can operate under normal circumstances without outside support. In no way can one consider dividing Belfast, which is a small area, into self-contained units which do not need outside support. Any crime committed in Belfast inevitably impinges on all areas of the city. And as regards terrorism, police commands of that size undoubtedly need outside support.
  1626
  I therefore believe that Belfast should be one unit and controlled as such. There should not be so many police districts.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 27 and 28 are linked and remove the provision that there shall be up to four police districts in Belfast as determined by the Chief Constable.
  There are currently four police districts in Belfast and I do not understand why the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, would expect the Chief Constable to have one when that is not what he wants. Therefore, I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, to withdraw his amendment.
  Lord Rogan: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. I ask him to be aware that the current police forces are not confined merely to the city boundaries of Belfast. They spill well out into south Antrim and north Down. They are not confined only to the City of Belfast.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I shall return to that matter but move on to later amendments. Amendment No. 29 is related to Amendments Nos. 27 and 28 in that it reflects an opposition to Belfast subgroups to which the main burden of the speeches related. The Government were pressed on this issue during their consultations on Patten and the Bill and they sought a sensible solution. They take the view that there should be sub-groups, also referred to by Patten as sub-committees, but that these should be based on the police districts under Clause 20, which Amendments Nos. 27 and 28 attack. The sub-groups will match police districts; the members will come from the DPP; there are no special arrangements for appointments to the bodies from elsewhere; and the four are part of and will account to the overall Belfast DPP.
  I would further point out that the provision on the sub-groups reflects Patten; is for sub-groups to be in line with police districts; provides for limited functions so as not to detract from the overall DPP; provides for appointment to sub-groups from the DPP: and provides for the board's guidance to cover them.
  Under the Bill, for Belfast the boundaries of the police districts must coincide with the district council area, but within that the Government have concluded that it is right that the Chief Constable should have flexibility to determine the number of police districts up to a maximum of four. He has four at present and I do not believe that he has any plans to change them.
  We are aware that the sub-divisions are not entirely consistent with the Belfast council area, but there are only a few exceptions. That will not constrain the operational independence of the Chief Constable. In the light of that explanation, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
  Lord Rogan: My Lords, we are getting bogged down in geographical niceties. I suggest that the north Belfast police board stretches as far as Aldergrove

  1627
  airport and to Toome, which are hardly within the city boundaries of Belfast. However, I hear what the Minister said and with those assurances beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 28 not moved.]
  Clause 21 [District policing partnership sub-groups for Belfast]:
  [Amendment No. 29 not moved.]
  8.30 p.m.
  Clause 22 [The local policing plan]:
  Lord Molyneaux of Killead Lord Molyneaux of Killead moved Amendment No. 30:
  Clause 22, page 11, line 15, at end insert ("and shall consult any other bodies established pursuant to section 23(2)").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 30 and 30A aim to strengthen the consultative process. In particular, Amendment No. 30 compels consultation with other organic community bodies in the style of community police liaison committees (CPLCs) which can and, it is hoped, will continue to operate. Amendment No. 30 may not be entirely perfect, but I believe that its intention is reasonable and modest. Amendment No. 30A is designed to make it clear that the police will retain the right to initiate any community policing consultation measures that they see fit, in addition to measures put forward by either the board or DPPs. I beg to move Amendment No. 30.
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I speak to Amendments Nos. 30 and 30A. Under Clause 22, before issuing or revising a local policing plan the police district commander must consult the local DPP and take account of any views expressed. Amendment No. 30, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, which is identical to one tabled in Committee, would oblige the police district commander also to consult any local consultative groups set up under Clause 23(2). The majority of such groups, if not all, should be established under subsection (1). It may be that the amendment is intended also to cover that. Notwithstanding that, we do not believe that the police should have to deal with DPPs and all the local bodies set up by the board or DPPs. We believe that the DPPs should co-ordinate the views of the latter; and, as we said in Committee, if the board is convinced that that is the right way forward it can include such an arrangement in its code. The code can cover the arrangements for monitoring the performance of the police in carrying out the local policing plan. With that assurance, I hope that the noble Lord does not feel it necessary to press Amendment No. 30.
  I turn to Amendment No. 30A. I am happy to be able to reassure the noble Lord that the Bill does not prevent police consultation outside DPPs or other arrangements made under Clause 23. The Bill simply seeks to establish a framework for accountability and formal consultation as recommended by Patten.
  1628
  Therefore, there is nothing to prevent police consultation as envisaged by the amendment; otherwise, it would be impossible even for noble Lords to be consulted. I hope that, with that assurance, the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, will not pursue that amendment.
  Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for those explanations. She has provided considerable help as to the giving of guidance to people involved at different levels. I believe that we should experiment and see how it works. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 30.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 30A not moved.]
  Clause 24 [The Secretary of State's long term policing objectives]:
  Lord Glentoran Lord Glentoran moved Amendment No. 31:
  Clause 24, page 12, line 2, leave out paragraph (c).
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I thank the Minister for informing me earlier today that the Government intended to concede the points raised in Amendments Nos. 31 and 32. Because I should like to speak later to Amendment No. 60, for the moment I beg to move Amendment No. 31.
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I do not know whether your Lordships will be assisted if I speak to government Amendment No. 60, which is grouped with the amendments moved and spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran. Government Amendment No. 60 is the same as an amendment which the Government did not move in Committee. It would add the ombudsman to the list of those to be consulted under Clause 53(2) on guidance on the use by police officers of public order equipment. The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, asked the Government in Committee on 25th October (at col. 347) to take more time to consider their amendment. He was concerned about the ombudsman having been involved in the creation of the guidance.
  For the record, we have since discussed the matter and looked extremely carefully at the noble Lord's points. In the light of those, the Government have considered their amendment further, taken legal advice and consulted the police ombudsman. Our conclusion is that, although we appreciate the noble Lord's view, the Secretary of State would be bound to consult the ombudsman, because inevitably she would clearly have a great deal of experience (from the investigation of complaints into public order-type incidents) which would help to inform—I stress that word—the guidance. I emphasise that the ombudsman is only consulted. Ultimately, the guidance is a matter for the Secretary of State; it is his guidance, not the board's or the ombudsman's.
  It is quite clear that the annual and special reports produced by the ombudsman are in the public arena. Therefore, it is inevitable that the Secretary of State will have regard to the views of the ombudsman and take into account all factors in drawing up guidance,

  1629
  which is ultimately a matter for him. I hope that, in the light of us being convinced by his Amendments Nos. 31 and 32, the noble Lord in turn will be convinced by government Amendment No. 60.
  Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I take this opportunity to thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, for the time that they gave me and my noble friend yesterday. A good deal of time was spent discussing these amendments, for which I am most grateful. I am not convinced by Amendment No. 60. However, I shall consider it further. I doubt that I shall return to this matter at Third Reading, but I do not commit myself to that.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 25 [The Board's policing objectives]:
  Lord Glentoran Lord Glentoran moved Amendment No. 32:
  Clause 25, page 12, line 13, leave out (", The Ombudsman").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Baroness Harris of Richmond Baroness Harris of Richmond moved Amendment No. 33:
  Clause 25, page 12, line 18, at end insert—
  ("( ) The Board shall establish levels of performance (performance targets and indicators) to be aimed at in seeking to achieve—

  (a) any objectives established by the Secretary of State under section 24; and

  (b) the objectives determined by the Board for a financial year under this section.").

  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I rise to move Amendment No. 33 and to speak to Amendment No. 34 in my name and those of other noble Lords. The annual policing plan will, as now, be a key document. It should set out for the community what policing service it car expect. Broadly speaking, it should be a contract between the board and the Chief Constable about the policing service that is to be delivered.
  Patten wanted to get rid of labyrinthine provisions, and we all support that. The aim of these amendments is to say clearly and simply on the face of the Bill what must be included in the plan. I am sure we all agree that there is no point in setting objectives as required by Clause 25 if we do not measure whether they have been achieved. Setting indicators and targets is crucial so that both the community and board can judge whether the police achieve them; they are an integral and important part of the planning process.
  Equally, there are some fundamentals that any annual plan, whether for the police or any other organisation, should contain. What, for example, is one to do? How does one know whether one has achieved it? What resources can one devote to it? That is all that Amendment No. 34 in my name seeks to establish. Clause 3 sets out the role of the board, while Clause 57 sets out in detail the issues on which the board must report to the community each year. Clearly, any board must address such issues in its annual plan. Recommendation 22 of the Patten report
  1630
  indicated that there was no justification for government to second-guess the board in these matters.
  Any government control over the content of the plan through regulations can lead only to the Government second-guessing the board. It reduces community ownership of the plan, diminishes the role and damages the credibility of the new policing board. I believe that the amendment has the support of all the Northern Ireland parties and could be conceded to the Government's advantage. I beg to move.
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 33 and 34 have been debated at length. The Government have said that they will include these areas in regulations to achieve Patten's requirement. As the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, said, we should simplify the legislation, which Patten rightly described as labyrinthine.
  In Committee we said that these regulations are available and show that there is little separating the Government in terms of policy from noble Lords who support amendments in the group. The question is one of form. The regulation sets out the detail of what matters should as a minimum be covered in the policing plan—not, I should emphasise, and I hope this reassures the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, the actual contents of the plan—or in primary legislation. The Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation looked at precisely this issue and concluded in its recommendation,
  "that the great majority of powers in the Bill are appropriately delegated."
  The committee went on to suggest some changes which the Government have adopted.
  The noble Baroness appears to be confusing the regulations with the policing plan itself. It may be the way in which her points were responded to when the matter was dealt with in Committee. Responsibility for the plan remains in the hands of the board. The regulations prescribe the contents of the policing plan in exactly the same way as Clauses 14 to 17 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998. The regulations prescribe only the areas which the plan should cover. The actual contents of the plan will continue to be determined by the board after consultation with the community.
  I could go through in great detail different aspects of the appropriate primary legislation should the Government accept the principle that primary legislation is the best means of setting out the detail. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, who has rightly and helpfully pointed out the importance of tying the best value performance plan under Clause 28 into the overall police planning process. The Government's draft regulations do that.
  We believe that the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee has considered this matter carefully. I hope the noble Baroness feels reassured by my reply. I apologise if earlier answers misled her as to the circumstances in which the government were making these proposals.
  8.45 p.m.
  Baroness Harris of Richmond: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, for her explanation. I am not entirely convinced by it because the Explanatory Notes suggest that the regulations set out only the minimum requirements for the plan. They appear still to give the Secretary of State more control over the police planning process than was envisaged by Patten. I shall read carefully what the noble Baroness says and see whether we need to discuss the matter further before Third Reading and in case there are points that, as she suggests, I have not quite understood or muddled up.
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I stress that what I was saying was not that the noble Baroness had not understood points. It may be that they were not expressed clearly enough. I shall write to her if she would find that helpful.
  Baroness Harris of Richmond: My Lords, that would be enormously helpful. I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for giving me that assurance. I look forward to the dialogue we may have on this. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 26 [The Board's policing plan]:
  [Amendment No. 34 not moved.]
  Clause 28 [Arrangements relating to economy, efficiency and effectiveness]:
  Baroness Harris of Richmond Baroness Harris of Richmond moved Amendment No. 35:
  Clause 28, page 13, line 20, after ("functions") insert ("and those of the Chief Constable").
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 35, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 37 and 38. Amendments No. 35 and 38 stand also in the name of other noble Lords. I very much welcome the Government's recognition of the board's primary responsibility for best value. I can see that the Government have listened and tried to respond to the concerns which I and other noble Lords on all sides of your Lordships' House raised at Committee stage.
  I have looked carefully at the amendment in the name of the noble and learned Lord the Minister. May I say that I fully understand the reasoning behind the Government's amendments. Therefore, I have tabled Amendment No. 37, which departs from the existing best value model elsewhere, but which seeks to provide the reassurance which may be needed.
  I do not believe that anyone in the country, let alone in your Lordships' House, would claim to be an expert on best value. But I have some experience as chairman of a police authority, albeit in England, of the operation. I hope that I can help your Lordships by sharing some of that experience. Best value helps police authorities to focus on corporate priorities and monitor the performance of the police force against them by asking meaningful questions. To do that, the police authority members need to understand the way that the service is structured and how in broad terms
  1632
  departments operate, while at the same time recognising the sensitive role it must play in appreciating the chief constable's operational responsibilities.
  That does not mean that police authorities should not question whether the chief constable is carrying out those functions in an effective and efficient way. Mutual co-operation and dialogue are the only way to achieve that and to make progress towards a properly accountable police service in which the whole community can have confidence. I assure your Lordships that best value reviews are not about reviewing or scrutinising decisions in individual cases; nor are they about investigating the chief constable's operational decisions.
  Best value reviews involve rigorously examining broad functions such as procurement, estates management, people management and relationships with partner organisations, training, core management and so on. They are about asking questions such as: what does one do; how do we do it; and how can we give the community a better service? That is what best value is all about. Clarity of responsibility is absolutely essential. We must not create the possibility that there is a stalemate where there is no agreement on the way ahead. I fear that that could happen if we adopt the Government's proposed amendments. That could only damage the credibility of both the board and the police service in the eyes of the community.
  My amendment adopts the approach and wording used throughout the Bill. Our aim is to achieve a compromise and strike the right balance. I beg to move.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I wish to speak to government Amendments Nos. 36 and 38 to 42. Other noble Lords have put their names to Amendment No. 38, which removes Clause 28(3) of the Bill. The effect of this is to give to the board the primacy for reviewing police functions to achieve "best value". There seems to be broad agreement for this change. I want to put it beyond doubt that the Government see the board as having the lead role in these arrangements, and the Bill will now reflect that.
  Government Amendment No. 38 goes hand in hand with Amendment No. 36. This requires the board to act together with the chief constable in striving to achieve best value in respect of police functions. But again I wish to stress that the Government see the primary duty to achieve best value as falling to the board in respect of its own and police functions. In tabling these amendments, we have been influenced by what the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, has said to us. My right honourable friend Adam Ingram, the Minister of State, and I have found those discussions extremely valuable. There is now little between us, and the proposed provisions are very close to those in England and Wales.
  There are two reasons for Amendment No. 36. The first is management. We want the board and the chief constable to work together to achieve best value on the vast resources it takes to provide policing in Northern

  1633
  Ireland. We want the board to lead in taking forward the best value agenda, including in reviewing police functions. We want the board fully to involve the police. It is simply good management practice that the organisation under scrutiny should be involved in looking at the way it does things rather than have someone come in and tell it how to do things.
  The second reason for requiring the chief constable and the board to work together is that we have provided for the board to have very wide powers in this area. We need to ensure that a sensible balance is achieved between the chief constable's operational independence and the board's review power. Clearly, the board's review power should not extend to reviewing a particular arrest or second guessing the chief constable's operational judgment. That is not remotely what the best value provisions are about. I see that the noble Baroness agrees with that. The Government would not wish to leave any doubt that there are sensible limits to what should be reviewed within the context of the board's primacy in this area.
  I turn to Amendments Nos. 35 and 37, which cover the same ground as the Government's Amendments Nos. 36 and 38. I have to say that we have moved a long way on the best value provisions. I think the noble Baroness acknowledges that. As I said earlier, I believe the noble Baroness shares our objective. We both want the chief constable and the board to work together to achieve best value and this will clearly involve the sharing of each other's views. It is our judgment that Amendment No. 36 takes better account of Northern Ireland's unique circumstances than does Amendment No. 35. While our goal is very much a normal security environment, until that position is reached we believe it is prudent to provide the explicit assurance that both parties will act together. That is, after all, an accurate description of how it should work in practice. Amendment No. 35 seeks to reinsert a reference to the chief constable in Clause 28(2). That is unnecessary as Clause 28(2) deals with reviews which are a part of the overall best value arrangements mentioned in Clause 28(1). Subsection (1) already requires the board to make best value arrangements in respect of police functions.
  I shall now turn briefly to other government amendments in this grouping. Amendment No. 39 to Clause 29(4)(c) requires the Comptroller and Auditor General to assess the reasonableness of the board's performance indicators and standards in relation to its own and police functions. The Bill as drafted caters only for the latter. This responds to a suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Cope, in Committee. As I indicated at the time, I am grateful to him for highlighting the point. Amendment No. 42 makes a consequential amendment to Clause 31(1)(b) in light of that change.
  Amendment 40, to Clause 29(6), requires the Comptroller and Auditor General to publish his audit of the board's performance plan rather than have the board publish it as currently required. Again, that anomaly was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Cope, in Committee. Perhaps I may say specifically
  1634
  that his contribution has helped to improve the drafting of the Bill in this area. Amendment No. 41 is a drafting change.
  As is apparent, we have made a number of changes to the provisions dealing with best value. From where we are at the moment, we think that this is the right regime. But in the light of the assistance we have had from the noble Baroness, we shall consider carefully what she has said. That is not to give any suggestion that we will move. We think that we have reached the right place but it is only fair that we should consider carefully what she has said. In those circumstances, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, perhaps I may say that I think that he has got it right too. I am grateful to him for his remarks about my contribution in this area. I think that he is properly reflecting the special position of Northern Ireland, and particularly of the chief constable, at the present time.
  Baroness Harris of Richmond: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Minister for his comments. We have indeed moved a long way. We are all learning about what best value means. I make no criticism whatever in suggesting that any help I might have given has not been understood. We share the same objectives. We may well differ on "act together with" and "have regard to". As the noble and learned Lord suggested, we may discuss the matter a little further to see whether before Third Reading we can agree on a form of words. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his remarks. I shall read carefully what he has had to say. We shall probably be in dialogue before Third Reading. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 36:
  Clause 28, page 13, line 21, at end insert—
  ("( ) The Board shall, in making arrangements which relate to the functions of the Chief Constable, act together with him.").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 37 not moved.]
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 38:
  Clause 28, page 13, line 22, leave out subsection (3).
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 29 [Audit of performance plans]:
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendments Nos. 39 to 41:

  Clause 29, page 14, line 18, leave out (", so far as relating to the functions of the Chief Constable,").

  Clause 29, page 14, line 30, leave out ("Board-) and insert ("Comptroller and Auditor General").

  Clause 29, page 14, line 32. leave out ("(10)") and insert ("(11)").

  The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, these amendments have all been spoken to. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Clause 31 [Enforcement of duties under section 28]:
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 42:
  Clause 31, page 16, line 7, leave out (", so far as relating to the functions of the Chief Constable").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 38 [Attestation of constables]:
  Lord Archer of Sandwell Lord Archer of Sandwell moved Amendment No. 43:
  Clause 38, page 18, line 42, at end insert—
  ("( ) Every police officer serving at present shall within three months of the coming into force of this Act, make a declaration in the form prescribed in subsection (1) above before a Justice of the Peace.").
  The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, these debates have become a constructive dialogue between the Government Front Bench and the various sections of the House. I hope that that process will not be interrupted at this point.
  Clause 38 prescribes the oath which every officer will be required to take on appointment. It sets out the standards which we would expect from a good and conscientious officer and it is confidently to be hoped that the police in Northern Ireland would accord us no less. The question then arises: why is it only to be new recruits who are to take the new oath? Surely the Bill is intended to represent a new beginning for everyone. That is what the Belfast agreement was about. So why not a new beginning for existing officers? Surely every member of the force would be happy to pledge himself to observe those standards. That is what the Patten commission recommended. In paragraph 4.7 the report emphasised the importance of human rights as the very purpose of policing. It then formulated the oath, which the Government have adopted in the Bill, and introduced it as,
  "a new oath to be taken individually by all new and existing"—
  I emphasise "and existing"—
  "police officers".
  Then, in paragraph 15.15, after emphasising that, to whatever other organisation an officer may belong, his primary loyalty should be to the police service, it states:
  "The new oath we have recommended (in paragraph 4.7) is drafted with this point in mind. All officers"—
  I emphasise again, "all officers"—
  "should in our view swear to 'accord equal respect to all individuals and to their traditions and beliefs'. This undertaking should have precedence over any other oaths or qualifications associated with other organisations to which an officer may belong".
  That is what was said by the Patten commission. It is not clear for what reason Patten's "new and existing officers" and "all officers" have now become only "new officers". The change is likely to be seen as part of a process of whittling down Patten, and that is hardly likely to inspire confidence in the new beginning.
  I should like to ask my noble and learned friend who, if anyone, objects to taking the new oath? If the answer is "no one", why not enact accordingly? I beg to move.
  9 p.m.
  Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I rise to say that I am slightly surprised that this amendment has been tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell. I do not think that it would in any way be helpful. For that reason, I should tell him that we on these Benches would oppose it.
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, Amendment No. 43, tabled in the name of my noble and learned friend Lord Archer of Sandwell, would require serving police officers to take the new "oath" within three months of this Bill coming into effect.
  The primary purpose of the declaration (or oath, as it is commonly called) is to confer constabulary status upon the individual who makes it. To require existing officers to take the oath would, in effect, entail removal of this status and would thereby be in conflict with Patten's clear recommendation that the RUC should not be disbanded.
  I can assure my noble and learned friend that the Government have already gone a considerable way in attempting to take account of what, in this instance, are conflicting recommendations from Patten. The provision was amended in another place to require the Chief Constable to bring the terms of the declaration to the attention of serving officers and to ensure that they understand the need to carry out their duties in accordance with it.
  I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for his reference to constructive dialogue. I hope that, with this explanation. I have been able to assure my noble and learned friend that such constructive dialogue continues. I therefore invite him to withdraw his amendment.
  Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, I was advised by my lawyer that I do not have to answer questions of that kind! I am grateful for the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, although he will forgive me for noting that he announced simply that he would oppose the amendment. He did not give any reasons for so doing. If he opposes the amendment, I suppose that I shall have to bear that with fortitude.
  My noble friend has exposed the difficulty here. I am not quite sure that I agree with what she said at the outset but, if that is the case, Patten has made conflicting recommendations. That is rather surprising because, until now, I have not seen that pointed out.
  I do not find the explanation given by my noble friend wholly convincing, but I do not think that this is the appropriate time to interrupt what, but for this amendment, would appear to be a constructive dialogue. I propose to ask leave to withdraw the amendment, but I shall not give an undertaking for future good behaviour. We have yet to reach Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 43 [Contracting-out of certain recruitment functions of Chief Constable]:
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 44:
  Clause 43 page 21. line 5, at end insert—
  ("( ) Nothing in this section affects any other power which the Chief Constable has to enter into arrangements concerning the discharge of functions of his which are not prescribed under subsection (1).").
  The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 44 and to speak at the same time to Amendment No. 45. Other amendments have been tabled within this grouping, but I shall speak to them only after they have been spoken to by other noble Lords.
  Amendment No. 44 ensures that the Chief Constable can make such arrangements as may be necessary with the recruitment agent for the discharge of functions other than those strictly prescribed by the recruitment regulations. Put simply, it is designed to ensure that the Chief Constable has some room for manoeuvre in the contracting-out of the recruitment process, and is not rigidly bound by the need to have every last detail set out in the regulations.
  Amendment No. 45 is a technical drafting amendment to Clause 46(8) to insert a missing reference. I beg to move.
  Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, my colleagues and I have added our names to some of the subsequent amendments which have been tabled in this grouping. However, for the moment, we do not wish to speak to them because some developments have taken place since noble Lords debated this matter in Commit tee. For that reason, we do not propose to move these amendments.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendments Nos. 44A to 44C not moved.]
  Clause 46 [Discrimination in appointments]:
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 45:
  Clause 46, page 23, line 22, after ("(1)") insert (",(4)").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 45A not moved.]
  Clause 47 [Expiry, renewal and repeal of temporary provisions]:
  [Amendment No. 45B not moved.]
  Clause 48 [Action plans]:
  Lord Smith of Clifton Lord Smith of Clifton moved Amendment No. 46:
  Clause 48, page 24, line 32, after ("women") insert (", members of minority ethnic groups, disabled persons and members of other under-represented groups").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 46 and speaking to Amendment No. 47, we seek to encourage the Government not merely to allow the Chief Constable to devise action plans to try to encourage more women into the police, but also
  1638
  for the action plans to extend to ethnic minority groups, the disabled and other under-represented groups.
  In particular as regards the case of the disabled, we see that developments in information technology and so forth in police work enable many people to work appropriately in the service who, in an earlier age, might not have been able so to do.
  If the Government were to accept our amendments to this new clause we would be extremely comforted by the Government's realisation that Northern Ireland is an increasingly multicultural society and that there are other groups who feel marginalised in that society apart from the two main communities. There are regularly around 12 per cent of people in Northern Ireland who do not describe themselves as Catholic or Protestant on census forms. In fact, Chinese is the second most commonly spoken language in Northern Ireland. It is time that the Government moved away from their traditional "two communities" thinking and recognised that there are many sections within the Northern Irish community. We are moving towards a more richly diverse society and that should be cherished and valued highly.
  There is marked under-representation of women and ethnic minority groups in the police. The current female proportion is 11.1 per cent; it has been estimated that the number of people from minority ethnic communities in the police in Northern Ireland is fewer than 10. The introduction of monitoring and action plans will ensure a focus on equality of opportunity and the introduction of proactive measures to increase the representation of all underrepresented groups within the police. I beg to move.
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, similar amendments were tabled in Committee, although they have now been extended to include, in addition to ethnic minorities, disabled people and any other under-represented group.
  It is important to bear in mind that the object of the Bill, first and foremost, is to give effect to Patten's recommendations. In the commission's estimation,
  "the imbalance between the number of Catholics … and Protestants … is the most striking problem in the composition of the RUC".
  It must therefore be right that this should be our central focus in this legislation. Patten's recommendation, which we have accepted, was that other underrepresented groups, such as ethnic minorities, should be targeted by means of an imaginative advertising strategy.
  However, notwithstanding that, the Government have already recognised the issue, in equality terms, with the action plan on female representation. We should not lose sight of the fact that the Bill provides for the immediate application of Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 to the police. This places a duty on the police and other policing bodies to have due regard to the need to promote equality of opportunity as between various categories of people based on race, gender, religion, disability and other distinctions.

  1639
  We believe that this provides an appropriate vehicle under which the matters raised by the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, in Amendments Nos. 46 and 47 can be taken forward. In the light of this explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdrew his amendment.
  Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her reply. We shall wish to look in detail at what she said. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 47 not moved.]
  Clause 51 [Notifiable memberships]:
  Lord Molyneaux of Killead Lord Molyneaux of Killead had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 48:
  Clause 51, page 26, line 9, leave out subsection (2).
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is not our intention to move Amendments Nos. 48 and 49.
  [Amendments Nos. 48 and 49 not moved.]
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 50:
  Clause 51. page 26, line 15, at end insert—
  ("( ) The Chief Constable shall publish any guidance issued under subsection (2).").
  The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 50 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 57.
  Amendment No. 50 requires the Chief Constable to publish any guidance which he may issue to police officers in connection with notifiable memberships. This responds to points made by the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, and the noble Lord, Lord Elton, in Committee. I thank them for their contribution. The theme of this provision—as with so much of Patten—is to enhance transparency and openness within the police service, and this will aid that policy.
  Turning to Amendment No. 57, in Committee we undertook to consider some means of qualifying the circumstances in which disclosure of information on notifiable memberships is defensible. This was in response to points made by the noble Lord, Lord Cooke of Islandreagh, who is not in his place. The amendment makes it clear that the defence is not available if it is shown that the person concerned used his position in some way to obtain the information in question. This is an important safeguard to ensure that those who have access to this sensitive information do not abuse their positions.
  On the strength of Amendment No. 57, I invite the noble Lords, Lord Rogan, Lord Molyneaux and Lord Laird, not to move Amendment No. 56. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Molyneaux of Killead Lord Molyneaux of Killead had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 51:
  Clause 51, page 26. line 16. leave out subsection (4).
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have even better news for the Minister. We do not intend to move Amendments Nos. 51 to 55, nor the Minister's favourite, Amendment No. 56.
  [Amendment No. 51 not moved.]
  [Amendments Nos. 52 to 56 not moved.]
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 57:
  Clause 51, page 27, line 16. at end insert—
  ("( ) But subsection (10) does not provide a defence if it is shown that the person concerned used his position as a person to whom subsection (7) applies in order to obtain the information.").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 52 [Code of ethics]:
  Lord Archer of Sandwell Lord Archer of Sandwell moved Amendment No. 58:
  Clause 52, page 28, line 8, leave out ("understood the code as currently in force") and insert ("have undertaken to be guided by the code currently in force in the exercise of their general duty under section 32").
  The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, mentioned to me yesterday that, unavoidably, he has to be absent. He greatly regrets it. He asked me to add my name to his amendment and to move it. I thought that I had added my name; however, it does not appear on the Marshalled List. However, I understand that that does not preclude me from moving the amendment.
  The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, was kind enough to write out for me what he would have said had he been present. Perhaps the fairest thing I can do is to try to follow it as closely as I can without being tiresome.
  The noble Lord says that in drafting the amendment he has tried to follow as closely as possible the intention and language of the Bill. Clause 32 provides that police officers shall be guided by the code of ethics referred to in Clause 52. The clause states that the Chief Constable shall ensure that all police officers—that is, existing officers and new constables—have read and understood the code. The noble Lord seeks to strengthen this wording by providing that they must not only read the code, but must also undertake to be guided by it in all aspects of their general duty and functions.
  There is good reason for this. There are those who suspect that existing officers may read and understand the code but then proceed to forget about it. That is why the noble Lord wishes all officers to undertake freely to be guided in their work by the code. Impartiality and good standards of conduct and practice, mentioned earlier in this clause and in Clause 38, depend on it. Officers must not only be aware of convention rights; they must also be continually guided by the explanation of such rights given in the code. The noble Lord says that he wants to see a police service that is acceptable to all sides of the population.
  That is what the noble Lord kindly wrote out for me. I merely add: so do I. I beg to move.
  9.15 p.m.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, in responding, perhaps I may speak also to government Amendment No. 59. Amendment No. 59 requires the board to review the steps taken by the Chief Constable to ensure that the code of ethics is brought to the attention of officers. This makes a link to the board's duty to assess the effectiveness of the code under Clause 3(3)(d)(iv), and thereby facilitates that role.
  The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, requires the Chief Constable to ensure that officers undertake to be guided by the code of ethics in carrying out their general duty. Police officers are already required to be guided by the code of ethics in carrying out their functions by virtue of Clause 32(4). So it makes little odds whether or not they undertake to be guided by the code; the fact of the matter is that they must be guided by it.
  I believe that the Government and the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, are at one on the policy; therefore, I invite the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, on behalf of the noble Lord, to withdraw the amendment.
  Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, I had intended to commend my noble and learned friend's amendment, and I had ventured to hope that he might reciprocate. There are those who will be comforted by the explanation that he has given. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No 59:
  Clause 52, page 28, line 11, at end insert—
  ("( ) In order to enable it to carry out its function under section 3(3)(d)(iv), the Board shall keep under review the steps taken by the Chief Constable under subsection (8).").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 53 [Guidance as to use of equipment for maintaining or restoring public order]:
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 60:
  Clause 53, page 28, line 22, after ("Constable;") insert—
  ("( ) the Ombudsman;").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 54 [Regulations as to emblems and flags]:
  Lord Desai Lord Desai moved Amendment No. 61:
  Clause 54. page 28, line 26, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, perhaps I may speak also to Amendments Nos. 62 to 66, which all stand in my name. Noble Lords may recall that I had tabled these amendments for debate in Committee but at that time there was a sensitive situation regarding flags so I did not pursue them.
  The point is simple and, given the lateness of the hour, I shall be brief. The crux of the proposition is in Amendment No. 62. Clause 54 allows the Secretary of
  1642
  State to prescribe the design of an emblem or flag. My amendment says in effect that, in prescribing a design, we should be careful not to hurt the feelings of either community; therefore, we should avoid as far as possible association either with the state of Ireland or with the United Kingdom because either would offend one community or the other. Such a provision would allow the Secretary of State to create a wholly new symbol for a flag or emblem that would unite rather than divide the community. I beg to move.
  Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I should like to speak to Amendment No. 67, which has been included in this group. I shall not do so at any great length because I seem to remember making a rather lengthy contribution in Committee. However, what I have to say follows on from what I said earlier when we discussed Amendment No. 5. This is all about building partnerships and trying to get a police force that is acceptable to the whole Province and all the communities within it, yet one which is proud, which has a hat badge that it can wear with pride and which represents all of Ireland and the United Kingdom. For goodness sake, that is what the Good Friday agreement is about.
  The three major symbols for Ireland and the United Kingdom are the shamrock—we wear it on St Patrick's Day; the harp, in the national emblems of Ireland and also for Guinness; and, finally, our own Crown. That is what our amendment is about. We do not make any specific requests in this amendment as to what should surround the emblem or what shape it should take; or, indeed, for anything else. However, we say that here is an emblem of which the whole of Ireland can be proud. If the amendment is not accepted, in the light of my last few words when speaking to Amendment No. 5, I shall consider this to be another concession to the republican movement.
  Lord Vivian: My Lords, I intervene briefly because I strongly support my noble friend's amendment. I can see no useful purpose, or any good reason, for any change to the cap badge and insignia of the RUC. The Patten report states in paragraph 17.4:
  "Many people in Northern Ireland from the Irish nationalist and republican tradition regard the name, badge and symbols of the Royal Ulster Constabulary as associating the police with the British constitution and state"—
  it is a very small minority who support that perception.
  The report goes on to say:
  "The agreement about symbols is not an argument about policing, but an argument about the constitution".
  There is no need to remind your Lordships that Northern Ireland is part of the British constitution. As such, the police force in Northern Ireland should represent the British constitution. It is clear from what has been said that there is a small minority of Irish nationalists and republicans to whom the Government are, once again, making concessions. What about the very large Catholic community and the Protestant community that support the RUC and wish for no change? Perhaps I may remind noble Lords that one of

  1643
  the aims of Sinn Fein/IRA has been to destroy the RUC. In my opinion, this Government are doing exactly that.
  In my previous intervention I drew to your Lordships' attention that, for any organisation, the loss of its title will lead to low morale and inefficiency. Therefore, to take away its title and change its insignia would destroy all its ethos. It is that very ethos, built up over so many years, that makes the RUC such an effective force. I do not believe that the Government understand in any way what "ethos" means to a police force or for that matter to military units. However, without it, I can assure the Government that such organisations become totally useless. It is for those reasons that I support the amendment.
  Lord Dubs: My Lords, I do not believe that the strength of the police in Northern Ireland would be weakened by the proposed changes in the way suggested by the noble Lord. The Government do not intend to destroy the police in Northern Ireland; but rather they wish to build on its strengths and give it a "new beginning", as indicated in the Patten report.
  Patten said very clearly that there should be a new badge and a symbol so that one could indicate that there was a new beginning to policing in Northern Ireland, while respecting the achievements and sacrifices made by the RUC over many years. Surely that is a worthy set of aims. The new beginning will require a new badge, but quite properly the Secretary of State has decided that he will listen to the policing board, among others, and seek its guidance and advice on what it thinks the new badge should comprise. It surely is proper to leave it to people on the policing board from all sections of the community in Northern Ireland, from politics and outside politics, to recommend what they consider to be the best way forward with regard to the emblem.
  I refer to Amendments Nos. 61A and 63A in which it is suggested that the George Cross, so well deserved and earned by the RUC, should be included in the new emblem. I am not sure that that is a good idea, much as I was pleased when the George Cross was awarded to the RUC for what it had achieved and for the sacrifices of the past. But here we are looking to the future. I should have thought that it would not be appropriate to use the George Cross to symbolise the future but rather as a sign of respect for what has happened in the past. I hope that those amendments will not be taken further.
  Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, I support broadly the amendments standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Desai, and oppose Amendments Nos. 61A, 63A and 67A. I note that in Committee when discussing the cap badge and emblems of the RUC a number of noble Lords urged their retention. They did so on the grounds that, containing the Crown, harp and shamrock as they do, the existing insignia were neutral, being symbolic of the two communities by reflecting both the British and Irish elements that
  1644
  largely comprise the divided society of Northern Ireland. The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, said with passion,
  "it is all the more important to keep the badge and reinforce the continuity between the RUC and the newly named force that the Secretary of State is so keen to maintain".—[Official Report, 25/10/00; col. 349.]
  But that is precisely the point: no matter that in the abstract the current badge could be seen to reflect the symbols of both communities, the historical fact is—this is the point Patten made—it was seen, and would continue to be seen, in the Catholic community as representing the past. As the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, said, a new beginning requires a new set of emblems to symbolise that a new start is being made. It is an earnest of real intent. A new logo for a new launch is a commonplace in the worlds of industry, commerce and the voluntary sector, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Laird, would confirm in his professional capacity.
  The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, also said in Committee at col. 349:
  "There is no evidence that the badge is a deterrent to Catholic recruitment".
  With great respect, that is somewhat disingenuous. Without appropriate market-testing, we do not know that. It may or may not be a deterrent. As I observed earlier this evening, in my time in Northern Ireland I never came across Catholics who would encourage their co-religionists to join the RUC. Certainly some would be fearful of possible intimidation, but there was an overwhelming sense that a job in the RUC was inconceivable given a history, however recently improved, that included the notorious work of the "B" Specials.
  And yet almost every noble Lord wants to see a dramatic increase in Catholics working in the new police service. That will only come about if it is actively endorsed by all sections of the Catholic community—the Church, the SDLP and Sinn Fein. That will not be forthcoming unless they see a truly fresh start, and that means a new set of emblems symbolic of that fresh start. More importantly, it would lead to the development of a police service that could go into the existing "no go" areas, currently the fiefdoms of the Mafia that has grown out of the paramilitary organisations, where they would be welcomed by the majority of decent citizens. That must surely be our overriding goal.
  Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, I must admit that I probably move in lower social circles than the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton. Perhaps for that reason, and as a Member of Parliament for getting on for 27 years, I have lost count of the number of occasions when I have been approached by young Catholics to provide a supporting reference for their applications to join the RUC. Parents would say, "Eammon wants to join the force. He hasn't time to come and see you. Would you prepare a reference? We'll collect it on Saturday". It was quite a common occurrence. I am sorry to disagree with the noble Lord, but I have been a native of too long standing—80 years or so.

  1645
  Noble Lords who have today proclaimed the virtues of ditching the present all-Ireland emblem remind me of citizens of various parts of the United Kingdom, particularly in that area of London where I reside for four or five days a week, who confess that they have switched their votes to another party, "Because it was time for a change". When asked, "Change to what?" they reply, "We don't get involved in politics and so forth. It's just time for a change".
  So this is a change to what? We shall ditch something which should appeal to people in all parts of Ireland and Irish people abroad. Shall we switch, for example, to something as meaningless as a Sainsbury or Texaco logo? Is that the kind of logo to which we shall descend? If that is so, it is far better for us to forget about it altogether.
  9.30 p.m.
  Lord Monson: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, urges us to leave the decision on any new emblem to the Secretary of State after consultation with all interested parties. That sounds reasonable in the abstract. In practice we know exactly what will happen. It will not be the views of the 80 per cent or 85 per cent of the population who are either perfectly happy with the existing insignia, indifferent or mildly opposed to it which will prevail, but those of the 15 per cent (at most) hard-line republicans, as has happened so often in the past few years.
  Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I am reminded of the earnest endeavours of British Airways when it got rid of the tail-fin emblem and produced a most interesting collection of colours which meant nothing to anybody and rapidly became extremely unpopular.
  I, for one, would be happy for the Secretary of State to have a voice on this. He might well understand that, as we have said, the harp, the crown and the shamrock are hardly to be improved on to represent all the three aspects of society in Northern Ireland. People are happy with it. I cannot believe, as the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, said, that a meaningless logo can do any good. It will probably do a great deal of harm. It seems extraordinary for us to reject something which represents the coming together of all aspects of Northern Ireland.
  Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, I cannot agree with Amendment No. 62. I believe that the emblem should stay. Failing that, we should not tie the Secretary of State's hands as does the provision in Amendment No. 62 that any emblem,
  "shall be entirely free of any association with".
  That seems ludicrous. The Secretary of State already has to consult the board, the Chief Constable, the police association and any other person or body appearing to him to have an interest. If we cannot trust the Secretary of State to consult them, I believe that it is wrong to tie his hands in this way.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, it is right that we should have spent a good deal time considering
  1646
  issues of symbolism. Names, emblems and uniforms are important issues for many organizations, but they are of particular significance and sensitivity for police officers and others who are called on to maintain public tranquillity and enforce the law on behalf of the whole community and who generate a strong collective bond and loyalty to their organisation in the process.
  Our starting point has to be the Good Friday agreement, where all the signatories recognise that it provided,
  "the opportunity for a new beginning to policing in Northern Ireland with a police service capable of attracting and sustaining support from the community as a whole".
  The dilemma which the Patten commission had to face—it is one with which the Government have had to grapple subsequently—is how to deliver that new beginning and achieve the cross-community support that we all seek without in any way diminishing or dishonouring the extraordinary achievements of the RUC, particularly over the past 30 years, when it has come under sustained and wicked attack from ruthless terrorist organisations.
  A decent argument has been advanced by several noble Lords that the root cause of the current imbalance in community support for the RUC has little or nothing to do with its name, badge or flag and is due instead to intimidation by republicans. Set against that view are the many representations that have been made to the Government that the existing symbols would continue to be a barrier to the recruitment of many law-abiding Catholics, even if paramilitary intimidation were a thing of the past. Whatever the precise truth, the hard question that we have to face is what will most effectively mark the new beginning that we seek and offer the best chance of securing it and achieving support from across the community.
  Painful though it undoubtedly is, the Government's conclusion is that a new beginning requires a new name and that a new name requires a new badge. If it could have been done otherwise without those symbolic changes, we wouldcertainly have done so, as the Secretary of State has said many times. We honour and revere the sacrifices of the past, but we also have to demonstrate the courage to start a new chapter with new symbols designed to command the loyalty and respect of all law-abiding citizens of Northern Ireland.
  Undoubtedly, the best outcome will be if the new Policing Board can, on a cross-community basis, agree a new emblem and a service flag based on it for the new Northern Ireland Police Service. That is not an impossible hope. In as much as there are any precedents, they point both ways. On the one hand, the Northern Ireland Executive was not able to agree arrangements for flag-flying over government buildings—hence the flags order that the House approved last week. On the other hand, the Northern Ireland Assembly was able to agree an emblem that was acceptable to unionists, nationalists and republicans alike.
  It is consistent with our approach to devolution, under which local people attempt to reach their own solutions to problems rather than having them

  1647
  imposed by the Government, that we should be hesitant about prescribing the outcome in advance. I urge the House to exercise great caution over concluding that it ought to predetermine the outcome, particularly as that would inevitably be seen by one side as a partisan decision favouring the other tradition.
  Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, may I suggest that a possible logo might be a crossed gun and ballot box?
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I think that it is more appropriate for me to go on with my remarks following that intervention.
  Of course we have to recognise that consensus may not be achievable. That is why the Bill provides for regulation-making powers on flags and emblems. Those regulations will now have to come before both Houses of Parliament for approval. That is already a substantial safeguard.
  However, I recognise that in taking that power the Government have an obligation to say something about the approach that my right honourable friend intends to adopt if the relevant clause reaches the statute book in its present form. The plan is that the shadow Policing Board will come into being during January and that the new badge and flag will come into use in the autumn, when the first recruits join the new service. However, before that, when the recruitment process starts in April, potential recruits will want to know what has been decided. To allow the necessary preparations to be made, a conclusion on the issues will need to be reached as soon as the board can be formally consulted.
  Rather than confronting the shadow board with a blank piece of paper, my right honourable friend will discuss a range of ideas with it, consistent with the objective of securing cross-community support for the new service. It will be open to the board to endorse those ideas or to come forward with alternative proposals.
  If the board is able to reach a consensus on an emblem and a flag based on it that is capable of commanding wide support in the new police service and is also acceptable to the Chief Constable, my right honourable friend cannot conceive of circumstances in which he would wish to take a contrary view. That is the simple scenario, which, as I say, is not impossible.
  However, matters may not be simple. Therefore, in the absence of a consensus and in the light of comments received, my right honourable friend will need to decide what proposals to lay before Parliament. He has already made it clear that he does not accept that the new symbols must, as a matter of principle, be free of all association with both traditions. Equally, it would be entirely counterproductive to seek to prescribe symbols which have a high probability of being objectionable to one part of the community or another.
  1648
  So much is obvious. It is not whether we have the right to insist, but rather whether it would deliver the desired new beginning in policing if we were to attempt to impose something that sparked such controversy that it could deter one side of the community from joining or supporting the new police service.
  I recognise that what I have said will not be sufficient for those who want absolute clarity before the new board has had the opportunity to consider the options; nor will it be sufficient for those who are determined to hold on to the old symbols for reasons which I well understand. However, I believe that the process that I have outlined provides the best hope for achieving an acceptable and sensitive solution to this most difficult issue. Therefore, I urge the House not to insist on a change to the Bill.
  Perhaps I may deal briefly with the specific amendments. I have largely dealt with the points that have been made. The amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Desai—Amendments Nos. 61 to 66—would require that the emblem be entirely free of association with both states. As I said, my right honourable friend has made it clear that he does not accept that the new symbols must, as a matter of principle, be free of all association with both traditions.
  Amendment No. 67, tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, would have the effect of requiring that the current emblem remain the emblem of the police service and be included in the flag. For the reasons that I have already advanced, my right honourable friend has concluded that a new badge is required. Amendments Nos. 61A and 63A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, and others, would require that the design of the emblem and flag reflect the traditions of both communities in Northern Ireland and the award of the George Cross to the RUC.
  I understand the sensitivity of the amendment and the significance of the award of the George Cross to the Royal Ulster Constabulary. However, I do not believe that it would be right to fetter my right honourable friend's hand in this way in the discretion that he might need in approaching the potential situation that I outlined earlier. Therefore, I invite noble Lords to reject the amendment.
  Lord Glentoran: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, do the Government still believe that one of the best ways to take politics out of policing is to make responsibility for the design of this emblem one of the first duties of the new board?
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I believe that I have set out in some detail what the timetable will be.
  Lord Desai: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate which I sparked off. My purpose was to return to this issue, discussed in Committee, but with perhaps a more constructive approach. I am most grateful to my noble and learned friend for the detailed answer that he gave.

  1649
  There appears to be a division between those who believe that all change is bad—I am reminded of what the Marquess of Salisbury said:
  "Change? Why do people want change? Aren't things bad enough as they are?"—
  and those of us who believe passionately that, if we are to make a new beginning, a change must take place. I am sure that the hands of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State should be as free as possible. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 61A to 67 not moved.]
  9.45 p.m.
  Clause 56 [Co-operation with Garda Siochana]:
  Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 67A:
  Clause 56. page 29, line 6, leave out from ("shall") to ("co-operation") in line 8 and insert ("promote wherever practicable").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is the same as an amendment which we discussed in Committee, when we got into some slight confusion. Unlike the previous amendment, it does not touch on a highly sensitive matter but on a matter on which there is great agreement.
  Lord Alli: My Lords, perhaps I may clarify the position on Amendment No. 67. The noble Lord said that it was not moved. Is it, therefore, the property of this House?
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, no; it was not moved. That is it. I am dealing with Amendment No. 67A, which concerns a different subject; namely, co-operation with the Garda. The previous amendment was a much more partisan matter and the Government's insistence on dropping the present badge will be regarded as a very highly partisan decision by a large number of people, including myself. But I do not want to become involved in a discussion on that because, at present, I am moving Amendment No. 67A about co-operation with the Garda, which is not a partisan matter.
  We all wish that there should be the maximum co-operation. There is a great deal of co-operation now. In chapter 18 of his report, Patten recommended some specific measures for increasing co-operation. The only difference between us is the precise wording in the Bill.
  The Bill suggests that the board and the Chief Constable shall implement arrangements in pursuance of agreements between the two governments—the Government of the United Kingdom and the Government of the Republic. However, Patten suggested that there should be agreements between the police forces. He used the analogy of the agreements that the Kent Police Force has with some of the continental forces. There are a large number of agreements and co-operation in different fields between the different forces.
  1650
  I am all in favour of police forces co-operating and, as a general rule, although it is not Holy Writ, as it were, the lower the level at which that co-operation takes place, the better. It was my observation, when I was responsible for those matters in Northern Ireland, that the co-operation at a low level between Garda individual police stations and the individual police stations of the RUC could be very good, and closer than the government in the South wanted it to be, as far as I could see at that particular time. Such co-operation is extremely good and it is that sort of cooperation which Patten is suggesting in terms of joint training and other such measures.
  I want to see not only co-operation with great agreements between the two governments—because there is a place for that; but the co-operation needs to be much wider and deeper than that, as Patten suggested. I beg to move.
  Lord Monson: My Lords, I support everything that the noble Lord, Lord Cope, with his great experience in these matters, has said. Surely if this amendment is not agreed to, we shall effectively have political interference in the day-to-day or week-to-week operation of the police force. That is totally undesirable in any country. I shall be interested to hear what the Government have to say on the matter.
  Lord Dubs: My Lords, if I understood the noble Lord, Lord Cope, correctly, he said that he thought that there was, on occasion, the need for co-operation between the two governments and yet his amendment seems to preclude such co-operation which is, at present, provided on the face of the Bill. I hope that I have not misinterpreted what he said, but that is certainly what I understood him to say.
  Perhaps I may say why I am not happy about the amendment. Certainly, from my time in Northern Ireland, I recall that frequently there was good co-operation between the two governments on a whole range of matters. Indeed, there was also good co-operation between the RUC and the Garda Siochana. Such co-operation at both local and governmental levels seemed to me to be desirable in the interests of all the people in Northern Ireland.
  There may be occasions when it will be appropriate for the two governments to reach an agreement, particularly if, as seems likely, there is a need for legislation in the other jurisdiction. It would be sensible if there was agreement between the two governments so that the legislation in the other jurisdiction fitted in with the arrangements. That could deal with a whole range of matters, such as inter-service secondment, which has been discussed, or possibly pension arrangements. Those items would not concern the operational independence of the Chief Constable. I should have thought that that was a sensible arrangement. It is not helpful to have an amendment which would preclude the possibility of such an arrangement between the two governments.
  Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, I rise to support this amendment. I do not see why we need on

  1651
  the face of the Bill the possibility or availability of co-operation. I do not see why it cannot be on a much more casual and flexible basis when it comes to the two police forces.
  I accept that governments may need legislation to permit them to do certain things between themselves. But the police forces are already beginning to co-operate. There are already RUC officers at the Garda training school. The secondment about which the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, spoke, does not need an Act of Parliament to take place. I do not believe that it needs such an Act of Parliament for that to take place between any states in Europe. We are talking about Europe as an open market, about co-operation on crime. Everything we do with the Garda should be taken within that context. I do not want to see such a provision on the face of the Bill. I support the amendment.
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, this clause is designed to implement Patten's recommendations that there should be closer co-operation between the two police forces.
  Amendment No. 67A was raised in Committee, when one of the central points of the debate seemed to be a concern, echoed by noble Lords tonight, that the clause would impact on the board's role and the Chief Constable's operational independence. We wrote to noble Lords reassuring them that the Government would not envisage agreeing to protocols without signing the board and the Chief Constable up to them first. So there is no question—I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Monson—of undermining the Chief Constable's operational independence in any way.
  Another concern, and an effect of Amendment No. 67A, was that the Government need not be involved; that protocols would be sufficient. But the example given by Patten in paragraph 18.6 of co-operation between the Kent Constabulary and neighbours in France and Belgium is backed by legislation made by government.
  Furthermore, the Government want to ensure that there is reciprocal agreement on this matter and that can best be achieved at this level. The Irish Government will proceed with arrangements for an intergovernmental agreement and for the appropriate protocols and will take all required measures, including legislative measures if necessary, to implement them. Of course, that is dependent on the final shape of the Bill before the House.
  I hope that I have managed to assuage the fears of noble Lords. I pay tribute to the work already being done in certain areas of co-operation. The measures in this clause would enable that work to be strengthened and extended.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, first, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, that my amendment would not preclude any agreements between governments. It is not intended to do that and I do not believe it would preclude them in legal terms. The British Government
  1652
  do not need legislation to enter into agreements and treaties. Some people think that it should be required—and quite often legislation is necessary to implement our half of a treaty.
  My amendment would not preclude government-level agreements. However, it is intended to extend the provisions of the Bill so as to make clear that we want to see maximum co-operation between the police forces at every level and, for that matter, relevant services such as Customs and Excise.
  My experience may be a little different from that of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. When I was Minister in the Northern Ireland Office, the Taoiseach was Charles Haughey, who was perhaps not so sympathetic to agreements between the two governments. Although there were frequent meetings and we constantly pressed them for further and better agreements and co-operation with the police, it was sticky, slow work. I am sure that that is not the situation today and that it is much improved, but that experience may colour my view.
  We are all agreed that, as Patten recommended, there should be co-operation at every level. Patten did not recommend that it should be confined to treaties and saw it occurring at all levels and in all ways. That is what we all want and therefore, in the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 57 [Annual and other reports by Board to Secretary of State]:
  Lord Molyneaux of Killead Lord Molyneaux of Killead had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 67B:
  Clause 57, page 29. line 44. at end insert—
  ("( ) the effectiveness of district policing partnerships in the carrying out of their functions;
  ( ) the level of public satisfaction with the performance of individual district policing partnrships").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, reading the two subsections, I am confirmed in my mind that today and on earlier occasions the ground has effectively been covered. If we have not made headway, we have obtained clarification and we do not propose to move the amendment.
  [Amendment No. 67B not moved.]
  Clause 60 [Inquiry by Board following report by Chief Constable]:
  Lord Molyneaux of Killead Lord Molyneaux of Killead had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 67C:
  Clause 60, page 31, line 21. at end insert—
  ("(1A) No inquiry shall be caused under subsection (1) if it relates to the conduct of a member of the police force which took more than the prescribed period before the date on which a report under section 59 was submitted to the board.
  (1B) The prescribed period shall be the prescribed period determined by the Secretary of State under section 64 of the 1998 Act.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, the comments I made in respect of the previous amendment apply to this one. Many of the points which we have put before the House have been met. In the light of that and certain private discussions, we do not propose to move the amendment.
  [Amendment No. 67C not moved.]
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 68:
  Clause 60. page 32, line 15, leave out ("facts") and insert ("information").
  The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 68, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 69. At col. 377 of the Official Report of 25th October, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, who unfortunately is not in his place, queried the use of the word "facts" in Clause 60. In the light of his concerns, we have looked at the provision again and concluded that the word "information" should be substituted in its place. That is the effect of Amendments Nos. 68 and 69. They are intended to remove the connotation that an inquiry can be used to delve into the past to establish pre-commencement facts. Rather, the Government's intention in Clause 60(12) is to make it clear that an inquiry into a current matter can consider relevant information which predates the commencement of Clause 60.
  I hope that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, and other noble Lords will accept the change and I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 69:
  Clause 60, page 32, line 16, leave out ("those facts") and insert ("that information").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Baroness Harris of Richmond Baroness Harris of Richmond moved Amendment No. 70:
  Clause 60, page 32, line 26, leave out subsection (15) and insert—
  ("(15) The costs incurred in respect of an inquiry under this section shall be defrayed by the Secretary of State.").
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, when I raised the issue in Committee I was heartened by the Minister's signal that the Government would look carefully at any requests the board made for funds to cover the cost of an inquiry. If the board has met all the other stringent criteria for initiating an inquiry, I am sure that no government would lightly refuse to meet the costs, otherwise the board would be unable to exercise the powers which the Bill confers on it.
  I would welcome the Government's further assurance that they would be prepared to look at such funding requests as the need for an inquiry arises, rather than wait for the annual budget negotiations. That could significantly delay an inquiry and damage the credibility of the board. I beg to move.
  10 p.m.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the Government have already said that they believe that resources should rest with those who use them. We shall consider carefully any request by the board for additional funding for an inquiry. The Government have shown that they are prepared to take on difficult
  1654
  inquiries but they cannot give the board a blank cheque. On that basis, I ask the noble Baroness not to press her amendment.
  Baroness Harris of Richmond: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for that short response. Nevertheless, I believe that this is an important amendment to which we may return at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 64 [Supply of information by Ombudsman to Board]:
  10 p.m.
  Lord Rogan Lord Rogan moved Amendment No. 71:
  Clause 64, page 35, line 3, leave out ("as is") and insert ("or other information as might be reasonably").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, like the current police authority, the policing board will have a statutory duty to keep itself informed about the workings of the police complaints and disciplinary system. Amendment No. 71 certainly does not seek to erode the independence of the ombudsman or question the validity or integrity of the new police complaints system in Northern Ireland. The amendment is an attempt to rectify some flaws in the Bill.
  The police authority currently has access to a wide range of information, including completed files on cases of complaint, in order to carry out its duty. According to Clause 64, the only information that the ombudsman must supply is statistical. There is no obligation to supply any other material—for example, completed case files. That will create an anomaly whereby Northern Ireland will be treated differently from England and Wales, where police authorities receive information from the forces that they oversee. In Northern Ireland, however, with the change in the complaints system, all police complaints will be dealt with by the police ombudsman, unlike in England and Wales, where only the more serious cases are referred to the Police Complaints Authority. The supply of information will, therefore, be at the discretion of the ombudsman.
  Although it is established custom and practice in Great Britain that police authorities are provided with complaints files, I believe it is preferable if the Bill contains a requirement to provide information. If the board is to be a strong independent body in its own right, it is unhelpful if it must rely on the discretion of the ombudsman to provide the information that it needs to do its job effectively.
  Furthermore, one of the statutory duties of the new board is to ensure police compliance with the Human Rights Act. It will be unable to perform that function if it is entitled to receive only statistical information about complaints. Access to a broader range of information is, therefore, required. For example, what would happen if the board requested information other than statistics and the ombudsman refused to provide it? Such a turn of events, especially if made public, would hardly help to build confidence in the transparency and accountability of policing in

  1655
  Northern Ireland. For the reasons briefly outlined, I urge noble Lords to support the amendment. I beg to move.
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, Amendment No. 71 is on a theme which was also raised in Committee. The Government said then that, looked at from the board's point of view, it appeared to be attractive. But the Government must look at the role and functions of the two bodies, both of which are independent. The use of the word "reasonably" may be an advance on what was debated in Committee. However, the amendment still puts control of general information in the hands of the board, yet it is the ombudsman whom Parliament has decided should be in control of the police complaints system, not the board. The board has a different role, one part of which is to keep itself informed of police complaints. I can assure the noble Lord that the current provisions will enable that to happen.
  Patten made it clear that the ombudsman should be responsible for compiling data, and trends and patterns in complaints against the police or accumulations of complaints against individual officers and that the board should use the data it received in developing or reviewing policies and practices; hence the provision requiring the provision of statistical information. Patten did not suggest that the ombudsman should be subservient to the board and said that the ombudsman should have a dynamic co-operative relationship. This is what we expect will be the case.
  The board has a different role, one part of which is to keep itself informed of police complaints. The current provision will enable this. I know of no provision in the Police Act 1996 which places a duty on the Police Complaints Authority to provide information in England and Wales. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, that I shall check that matter. If I am wrong I shall write to him.
  Another important point is that the ombudsman is already required by the Bill to supply information but the decision is rightly hers on what to send. We have no doubt that she will consult the board on what information it will find helpful to receive. Therefore, I would ask the noble Lord not to press his amendment.
  Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, perhaps she can take into account in preparing the letter to my noble friend that this ombudsman—I am not certain whether we are being politically correct and should refer to ombudsperson—referred to in the legislation is not someone who is isolated like a High Court judge. She—she happens to be an ombudswoman—is already inserting herself into various groupings and committees and sitting in on discussions. The experience and wealth of knowledge that she will acquire in those fields could be of enormous help to the police authority and to the chief constable. We are not talking of classified and confidential information which she will acquire in the way that a normal
  1656
  ombudsman does; it is because she is—I think wisely—involving herself in all manner of discussion groups, in bodies and so forth, that I think she could be a great source of assistance to the bodies we have mentioned.
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, is right in what he says. It is for that reason that we support Patten in its aim—followed through in the Bill—to ensure that there is constructive dialogue and that that is followed through between the ombudsman and the board.
  The noble Lord tempts me into the field of discussing whether we should refer to ombudsperson, ombudsman or ombudswoman. I should tell the noble Lord that during the passage of the Greater London Act we had a constructive dialogue on that Bill which has been referred to tonight. It progressed steadily during the course of the evening until two things happened at the same time: first, someone raised the question of chair or chairwoman; secondly, the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch—the noble friend of the noble Lords, Lord Cope and Lord Glentoran—appeared in the Chamber and the debate that followed lasted three-quarters of an hour. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, does not want to tempt me into that situation.
  Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, my own preference is to use chairman or chairwoman hut not chair because that conjures up visions of woodworm.
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, that was the kind of comment that sparked the lengthy debate. In asking the noble Lord not to press Amendment No. 71, the Government realised, in tabling an amendment in Committee to Clause 65 which adds subparagraph (d) to Section 64(2A) of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998, that it was a little less specific than it wanted to be.
  Government Amendment No. 72 seeks to remedy that by making it clear, as the Government said in Committee, that this was intended to cover the ombudsman's relationship with the commissioners and the tribunal under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. When we reach that amendment, I shall move it. Government Amendment No. 73 is purely a drafting change to alter a reference to the ombudsman in Schedule 1. I shall move that amendment too at the appropriate time.
  Lord Rogan: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her comments. I may well come back to the matter. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 65 [Limits on complaints and references to Ombudsman]:
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 72:

  1657
  Clause 65, page 35, line 34, leave out ("a prescribed person or body") and insert ("—

  (i) the tribunal constituted under section 65(1) of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, or

  (ii) a person appointed under Part IV of that Act").

  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 70 [The Royal Ulster Constabulary GC Foundation]:
  Lord Laird Lord Laird moved Amendment No. 72A:
  Clause 70, page 37, line 6, at end insert—
  ("( ) The foundation shall—

  (a) make provision to support the development of the RUC Widow's Association and the RUC Benevolent Fund;

  (b) make provisions for injured police officers, retired officers and their families.").

  The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I am conscious that events have moved on with regard to RUC widows. I have brought this issue to your Lordships' notice on many occasions. I had a sympathetic hearing from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, who has been helpful in dealing with the issue. As a result of representations made on behalf of the widows, Mr John Steele, a very distinguished retired Northern Ireland civil servant, was asked to look into what could be done for the two categories of RUC widows: those who were widowed prior to 1982 and those who were widowed after 1982. Mr Steele has produced a report which I shall be looking to the Government to implement in full. In fact, I shall be looking to the Government to enhance what is proposed.
  While it seems on the surface that the payments to the widows are generous, I would have to put them into context. I have mentioned in the House on two separate occasions that one RUC widow has been widowed for 30 years. After 30 years' inflation, her pension is £134 a month. That is a shame and a scandal. It is an emotive issue. It has become a major theme of the Belfast Telegraph, a Belfast evening newspaper, and has now been picked up by one of the morning papers, the News Letter. Under Mr Steele's proposals, that widow would receive £1,000 per year for every year since her husband died. That is £30,000. That is £20 a week for the loss of her husband in most cruel and dreadful circumstances.
  On a night like this we debate matters of extreme importance. Those of us who live in Northern Ireland sometimes become a little frustrated with noble Lords who do not have the considerable benefit of living in Northern Ireland and therefore have not seen the work of the RUC and have not had their relations and next door neighbours—in my case, my boss at work—shot dead. In some cases they were mistaken for RUC men and in other cases they were RUC men. My next-door neighbour was one of the finest men I have ever met. He was shot by the IRA. Despite what has been said in this Chamber by Liberal noble Lords—I know personally the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, and I know that he means well—I must stress that my next-door neighbour's only crime was that he was a member of the Roman Catholic faith.
  We owe an awful debt. I owe my life to the RUC, the police service which has looked after me. I feel morally bound to be on the side of the widow and on the side of the injured policemen, of whom there are many, far too many. There are men with no legs, men with only one arm, blind, deafened or mentally impaired. We owe them a debt which no one in this Chamber, in Northern Ireland or anywhere else could adequately express. It makes me emotional to consider just what we owe these people.
  I am grateful for the help given to us by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, through the John Steele review. However, my amendment seeks to take that help one step further. Clause 70 covers the establishment of a foundation to be known as the,
  "Royal Ulster Constabulary [George Cross] Foundation for the purpose of marking the sacrifices and honouring the achievements of the Royal Ulster Constabulary".
  My amendment seeks to add a subsection which would require that foundation to make provision to support the development of a widows' association and a benevolent fund. It would also make provision for,
  "injured police officers, retired officers and their families".
  My colleagues and I happen to be Cross Benchers, but we are also members of the Ulster Unionist Party. We are people who live in Northern Ireland. So far we have received only thin gruel as this Bill has passed through its stages. I should like this amendment to be considered seriously as a method of recognising the good people—the widows and the injured policemen—back home. We should demonstrate the kind of esteem in which this House holds that tragic but gallant section of the population, whose sacrifice cannot be measured. I strongly recommend this amendment to the House. I beg to move.
  10.15 p.m.
  Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I should like to express my very strong support for this amendment. I have had a good deal to do with the association representing disabled police officers in Northern Ireland. Many officers are tetraplegics or paraplegics. All of them suffer from terrible stress, as do their families. The children have to live with a man who may have no arms or legs. They have to see him living still in danger and still under threat. This group deserves very special recognition.
  That is particularly the case since Sir Kenneth Bloomfield looked into the issue of victims. Both his report and the government reached the conclusion that nothing could be done retrospectively over the issue of compensation. Many of those affected received compensation which had been fixed 30 years ago. They received less then than they would ever have received had they suffered from industrial injuries. They were badly advised. Most of them were poor and did not have access to good solicitors. Many ended up with disgracefully low settlements.
  Nothing can be done because—I can understand it—no government would be prepared to consider retrospective compensation. However, in view of the splendid gesture towards the Japanese prisoners of war,

  1659
  we ought to think carefully about a special, one-time compensation for those people. I would strongly support a special provision in the Bill specifically for those victims.
  A great deal of money has been spent on victims in Northern Ireland during the past three years—government money, EU money and private money—but, necessarily, an awful lot of it has gone not to the RUC and their dependants but to the people who put them in that situation—the children of prisoners. The children, of course, are blameless. Nevertheless, I know, for instance, that the DPOA wanted some computers which were being made available to victims for educational purposes. It was told that its members could not have them because they did not comply with one of the conditions—namely, that they had to have had an uninterrupted education. Most of them became officers at the age of 18 or 19; very often they were blown up when they were 22. They never had much chance to have an education. It is not that they had it interrupted—they just did not have it. But, nevertheless, they were excluded.
  Something very special should be done for this not very large and dwindling—because they are dying—group of people. This would be something tangible that people could see and understand.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I rise to support the amendment and the sentiments expressed. I know John Steele. He was, indeed, an excellent civil servant and official in the Northern Ireland office. I have not yet seen his report in full, only a quick summary, but clearly it is important. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell the House a little more about how the Government have received the report and what they intend to do about it.
  I shall not try to gild, as it were, what has been said by my noble friend in support of the amendment, except to say that we all owe a huge debt to the widows and to the injured police officers—particularly, if I may say so in the light of our earlier debates, to the Catholic officers of the RUC. I remember several such officers with whom I became friendly, some in senior positions and some in junior positions. Life was in any case exceptionally difficult in those days if you were a Catholic officer in the RUC.
  Among other things, I remember one officer telling me that he could not have a parish life. It was necessary for him to go to a different church to mass each week. If he had gone to the same church with his family there was a possibility of someone seeing him there and then seeing him in his police role, and that would have led to him being targeted. It was exceptionally difficult from that point of view.
  It is true, of course, that the casualties and the murders among the Catholic officers of the RUC were much higher than among the Protestant officers. That is why there have been comparatively few Catholics in the RUC over the years. It is not only that someone is killed or wounded in an incident, there is the also the particular horror of knowing that a horrible death or terrible injuries have been deliberately caused by someone
  1660
  targeting the individual concerned. That adds an element to the wounding and death over and above that which might similarly have occurred in a car accident and so on.
  As to the details of Amendment No. 72A, I am not exactly clear what the foundation will do, but it seems to me that this might well be one of the elements of its work.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the Government have repeatedly given their support to the sentiments expressed in Amendment No. 72A, which stands in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Rogan, Lord Laird and Lord Molyneaux, and which was so effectively spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Laird.
  As we said in Committee, the Government have already fully met Patten's Recommendation 88 with regard to supporting the RUC Widows' Association with funding. This amendment will not add to what the Government are already doing in that respect.
  With regard to paragraph (b) of the amendment, I am pleased to refer to an announcement made yesterday by my right honourable friend in response to the Steele report. Steele was asked to review the Patten proposal for a new peace fund. We have placed a copy of his report in the Library. I pay particular tribute to the noble Lords, Lord Laird and Lord Rogan, for their effectiveness in pursuing this issue, which led to the setting up of the Steele inquiry.
  The Government will now be taking forward implementation of this important report as quickly as possible. I know that that is my right honourable friend's intention. In the announcement that he made about the Steele report, he made it clear that the lump sum payments would be made to the widows of police officers killed by terrorist activity before 25th November 1982 without undue delay. I understand that he hopes to be able to make those payments before the end of the current financial year. He will also move to set up the trust fund proposed by Mr Steele as soon as practicable.
  In the interests of getting on with implementation, my right honourable friend has chosen not to have a formal consultation period so that it can be moved forward as quickly as possible. But I know that he and my right honourable friend the Minister of State will be glad to receive the views of any interested parties as to the form and detail of the fund. I am sure that he would welcome any further input and co-operation from the noble Lords who have proposed this amendment.
  The Steele report properly recognises the sacrifice of a part of society in Northern Ireland that understandably feels that its concerns have been neglected for too long. I welcome that recognition and I know that the House joins with me in that respect.
  Amendment No. 72A seeks to bring together the role of the RUCGC foundation and the trust fund to which I referred. The Government believe that the two bodies—and the interests of those they will serve—are best kept separate. As I have said, the Government intend to press on as soon as reasonably practicable with the implementation of the Steele report.

  1661
  The RUC GC foundation on the other hand will inevitably take a little longer to set up. A working group has been set up by my right honourable friend to come up with proposals. Clause 70 of the Bill sets out its general thrust, which is towards the professional development of police officers and innovations in policing. Representatives of the Police Federation and of the superintendents' and the chief police officers' staff associations have been invited to sit on this group and the Government look forward to hearing its views. There will certainly be a research element in its work.
  To conclude, the Government appreciate and share the sentiments that underlie the amendment. What divides us is the means rather than the end. I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
  Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, is he aware that there is a body of opinion that has put forward a proposal that the foundation shall be supported by Royal Charter? I realise that he will not be in a position to give an answer to this specific point tonight. However, will he recognise that those whom the foundation is intended to benefit would receive considerable comfort if a Royal Charter were to represent the kind of support for the foundation that can uniquely be given by those means?
  In the light of the failure to carry an earlier resolution about the name of the RUC, it would be seen as of great importance if that could be achieved. I realise that the noble and learned Lord cannot give a specific answer, but will he kindly take note that there is this feeling?
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I do take note of that. I am aware of that feeling. It is not a matter for the Government; however, I hope that the Government will be able to respond and indicate their views in the near future.
  Lord Laird: My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have spoken to the amendment. I also thank the Minister for his remarks. I appreciate what he has said and I am very pleased. That is in no way complicated by my amendment. My amendment seeks to,
  "make provision to support the development of the RUC Widows' Association and the RUC Benevolent Fund".
  It is a process of linking those sections of our community who have made sacrifices to the fund outlined in Clause 70. Everyone recognises that RUC widows and those who have been injured and disabled have made sacrifices. We wish to link the association and the benevolent fund to the foundation established in the Bill,
  "for the purpose of marking the sacrifices and honouring the achievements of the Royal Ulster Constabulary".
  If we must have things in black and white and written in tablets of stone as regards the relationship between the Northern Ireland police force and the Garda Siochana, surely it is a very small request to ask that the sacrifice of those people back home, who were initially grievously hurt and injured physically and then mentally by the release, in many instances, of the murderers and the attackers—the terrorists—should be reflected in the clause. Is it too much to ask—it is a very
  1662
  small price—that this amendment be accepted so that we may form a link in some way with the organisation called the "The Royal Ulster Constabulary GC Foundation" for the purpose of marking the sacrifice and honouring the achievements of the RUC?
  I do not believe that I am making an unreasonable request. It would be well received by the community from which I come in Northern Ireland, who have not gained much else from the past few days' activities in this House. Indeed, it would be received very well. I wish to test the opinion of the House on the amendment.
  10.32 p.m.
  On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 72A) shall be agreed to?
  Their Lordships divided: Contents, 50; Not-Contents, 134.

  Division No. 3

  CONTENTS

  Attlee, E.

  Lyell, L.

  Blatch, B.

  Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

  Brabazon of Tara, L.

  Mayhew of Twysden, L.

  Bridgeman, V.

  Molyneaux of Killead, L.

  Brigstocke, B.

  Monson, L.

  Brookeborough, V.

  Montrose, D.

  Burnham, L.

  Moynihan, L.

  Byford, B.

  Northbrook, L.

  Cooke of Islandreagh, L.

  Northesk, E.

  Cope of Berkeley, L.

  Norton of Louth, L.

  Craigavon, V.

  Palmer, L.

  Dean of Harptree, L.

  Park of Monmouth, B.

  Dundee, E.

  Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

  Eden of Winton, L.

  Rogan, L.

  Flather, B.

  Saatchi, L.

  Fookes, B.

  Seccombe, B.

  Glenarthur, L.

  Selborne, E.

  Glentoran, L.

  Shrewsbury, E.

  Griffiths of Fforestfach, L.

  Skelmersdale, L.

  Henley, L. [Teller]

  Stodart of Leaston, L.

  Kingsland, L.

  Tebbit, L.

  Kirkham, L.

  Thomas of Gwydir, L.

  Laird, L. [Teller]

  Vivian, L.

  Lamont of Lerwick, L.

  Wakeham, L.

  Luke, L.

  Willoughby de Broke, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Acton, L.

  Brookman, L.

  Addington, L.

  Burlison, L.

  Ahmed, L.

  Carter, L. [Teller]

  Amos, B.

  Castle of Blackburn, B.

  Andrews, B.

  Chandos, V.

  Archer of Sandwell, L.

  Clarke of Hampstead, L.

  Ashley of Stoke, L.

  Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

  Ashton of Upholland, B.

  Cohen of Pimlico, B.

  Bach, L.

  Crawley, B.

  Barker, B.

  Currie of Marylebone, L.

  Bassam of Brighton, L.

  Davies of Coity, L.

  Berkeley, L.

  Davies of Oldham, L.

  Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

  Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

  Billingham, B.

  Desai, L.

  Birt, L.

  Dixon, L.

  Blackstone, B.

  Dubs, L.

  Borrie, L.

  Elder, L.

  Bragg, L.

  Elis-Thomas, L.

  Brennan, L.

  Evans of Parkside, L.

  Brett, L.

  Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

  Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

  Falconer of Thoroton, L.

  1663

  Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

  Maddock, B.

  Faulkner of Worcester, L.

  Mallalieu, B.

  Filkin, L.

  Methuen, L.

  Gale, B.

  Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B

  Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

  Mitchell, L.

  Gilbert, L.

  Morgan, L.

  Gladwin of Clee, L.

  Morris of Castle Morris, L.

  Goldsmith, L.

  Nicol, B.

  Goudie, B.

  Northover, B.

  Gould of Potternewton, B.

  Orme, L.

  Grabiner, L.

  Parekh, L.

  Graham of Edmonton, L.

  Peston, L.

  Greengross, B.

  Phillips of Sudbury, L.

  Grenfell, L.

  Puttnam, L.

  Hamwee, B.

  Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

  Hardy of Wath, L.

  Rea, L.

  Harris of Haringey, L.

  Rendell of Babergh, B.

  Harris of Richmond, B.

  Renwick of Clifton, L.

  Harrison, L.

  Russell, E.

  Haskel, L.

  Sainsbury of Turville, L.

  Hayman, B.

  Sawyer, L.

  Hollis of Heigham, B.

  Scotland of Asthal, B.

  Howells of St. Davids, B.

  Sewel, L.

  Hoyle, L.

  Sharp of Guildford, B.

  Hughes of Woodside, L.

  Sheppard of Liverpool, L.

  Hunt of Chesterton, L.

  Shutt of Greetland, L.

  Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

  Simon, V.

  Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

  Smith of Clifton, L.

  Smith of Leigh, L.

  Islwyn, L.

  Stone of Blackheath, L.

  Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord Privy Seal)

  Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

  Taylor of Blackburn, L.

  Judd, L.

  Thornton, B.

  Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

  Tomlinson, L.

  King of West Bromwich, L.

  Turner of Camden, B.

  Layard, L.

  Wakefield, Bp.

  Lea of Crondall, L.

  Warner, L.

  Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

  Linklater of Butterstone, B.

  Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

  Lipsey, L.

  Whitaker, B.

  Lockwood, B.

  Whitty, L.

  Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

  Wilkins, B.

  Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

  Williams of Crosby, B.

  McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

  Williams of Mostyn, L.

  Winston, L.

  McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

  Woolmer of Leeds, L.

  MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

  Young of Dartington, L.

  Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

  Young of Old Scone, B.

  Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
  10.41 p.m.
  Schedule 1 [The Northern Ireland Policing Board:]
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 73:
  Schedule page 43, line 2, leave out ("office as Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland") and insert ("the office of Ombudsman").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Glentoran Lord Glentoran moved Amendment No. 74:
  Schedule 1, page 46, line 27, leave out ("after the date of his appointment").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 74 and 75 relate to the removal of members from office on the police board. Amendment No. 76 relates to disqualification for membership of the police board.
  The amendments are clear. They follow through our determination to ensure in the Bill that we cannot have our police force run by people with criminal records.
  1664
  As the Bill is drafted, that is not clear. If Amendment No. 74 is not agreed to, one could assume that if a member had committed some heinous crime, had been in the Maze, or whatever, before becoming a political member (or whatever) of the police board, that would be all right. That cannot be so. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, clarified that if individuals have a conviction of any kind they are disqualified from being members of a council or the Assembly for the full term of their sentence, assuming that they were released before the end of their sentence, plus five years. I do not think that that is good enough. We do not want people who have terrorist records on our police board—ever.
  Amendment No. 76 lays down reasonable conditions for disqualification from membership. They are very similar. If a person has been convicted in any one of a number of ways listed in the amendment, he has a criminal record, and clearly has no right to sit on a board in charge of a police force.
  It is late in the evening and I shall not repeat the arguments that we have made before. The bottom line is that we do not want any slip of the pen in the wording of the Bill to leave a gap that could ever enable convicted terrorists to be in charge of our police force. I beg to move.
  Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, I support the amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, has spoken to them with great restraint. Had he known when he drafted them that a so-called loyalist multiple murderer would be wined and dined in this building today, he might have used rather stronger language. I admire his moderation. That incident makes one wonder whether there is any limit to what can happen in the United Kingdom Parliament. I have been here for 30 years and I am beginning to wonder.
  Lord Monson: My Lords, I strongly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, and I hope that he will not take no for an answer on the amendments. I have to point out that there appears to be a drafting defect in Amendment No. 74. It should include the word "committed". However, that is no reason for him not to press the amendment, because drafting defects can always be cleared up at Third Reading.
  Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, I support the amendments. What the law-abiding citizens of Northern Ireland are being asked to put up with is unbelievable. The police are prepared in the course of their day-to-day duty to get injured in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Laird, described or to lay down their lives for the safety of the people of Northern Ireland or of any one of us who travels there. We are asking them to accept that their rules and regulations can be laid down not just by people who have committed a normal crime, but by those who have been convicted of the most heinous crimes. That beggars belief. I cannot imagine what we are up to. It is staggering.
  The Government say that they want participation from both sides of the community, but do they honestly believe that they have to go into the criminal sectors on

  1665
  both sides to get it? If they believe that, they should go to Northern Ireland and see. Are they saying that they cannot find a decent Protestant or a decent Roman Catholic without picking up one of those who have been involved in the criminal activities of the past 30 years? We are talking about the type of person who killed one of my soldiers, hitting him in the front of a school bus full of children, chasing him to the back and blowing his brains out over the children—and he went away down the road cheering. We may know who he was but we cannot convict him. He cannot be said to have suffered battlefield stress from being in a so-called war. He went away and celebrated with his friends all night.
  I cannot imagine which way we are going. The Government have taken away the police's badge, their uniform, everything, and now they are prepared to put hardened criminals into decision-making positions. They insult the Roman Catholic population. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, is not here, because he could say I his 10,000 times better than I can. He is proud of being a Roman Catholic and I am very proud to have known and served with some excellent Roman Catholic police officers who have done their best and sacrificed their family life and their whole social being. It might be argued that it is fair enough that we have let these criminals out, but we cannot put them on the Policing Board. I wholly support the amendments and I am horrified by the way in which it looks as if we are going.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, there have been consistent attempts to add provisions that would restrict membership of the board in a way that neither Patten nor the Good Friday agreement envisaged. The issue is one of inclusivity. The Government believe that those appointed to the Assembly should automatically be eligible for the board. Noble Lords disagree with that. We believe that the Good Friday agreement should be implemented in all its aspects, including policing reform and decommissioning. With regard to the latter, we believe Out the IRA needs to re-engage with the commission to show that further progress will be made. However, this Bill stands on its own merits.
  I believe that the removal provisions in the Bill provide a strong safeguard. Unlike the police authority of Northern Ireland at present but as under the Northern Ireland Act 1998, members of the board must be committed to non-violence and exclusively peaceful and democratic means.
  The Government have listened to the points raised by noble Lords. We hear their concerns. However, having listened, we believe that the Bill meets the test of inclusivity in the Good Friday agreement while containing appropriate safeguards. In those circumstances, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
  Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down—I do not know whether I have to employ that strategy more than I am allowed at I his point in order to make a speech—does he consider that the concept of inclusivity properly extends to including the confidence of those who serve in the police service of Northern Ireland? If he does, can he
  1666
  imagine the consequence for officers who expose themselves daily to the risks that have been recited so often in this House? Can he imagine the effect on their confidence of having as participants in the board people who have committed the type of scheduled offence with which we are concerned?
  It sounds clinical and almost consoling to speak of the offence as "scheduled". I know that it is rather bad form to recite incidents that have occurred. However, I believe that in order to inject a sense of realism it is necessary to recite one or two such incidents from people's experience. I recognise that my own experience is minuscule compared with that of many people who have lived in Northern Ireland. Perhaps I may take one example from either side of the community.
  I was present at the Heights Bar in Loughinisland a few hours after a terrible massacre had taken place of people who were watching a football match. It was perpetrated by so-called loyalists. They sprayed the bar and killed seven people, including Mr Barney Green, aged 82. The floor was covered with what appeared to be treacle, but of course it was not; it was the blood of Mr Barney Green and various other people.
  I take an episode from the other side. An RUC officer, PC Paul Slane, had both legs removed and an arm seriously injured by an IRA rocket installed in the roadside. The female police officer next to him was killed. That man survived and continues to serve in the RUC.
  How can members of the RUC be expected to have confidence in arrangements which include on the board people who have perpetrated, no matter how long ago, that type of outrage? That is what I ask the Government to consider. It really is necessary to move away from the nice, clinical language of scheduled offences into the reality of life and death.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State in another place made clear that those who are considered for appointment as independent members of the board will, as applies to the police authority at present, be subject to character checks. Such checks will include an obligation to disclose criminal records. On a large number of occasions we have also discussed removal criteria for both political and independent members who commit criminal offences after their appointment.
  However, the Government take the view that those who have been elected to the Assembly have a right to serve on the board. That is consistent with the way in which they may hold ministerial office. As I have already made clear, if they or independent members do not remain committed to non-violence and exclusively peaceful and democratic means, they may be removed. I believe that, as noble Lords know in relation to the Assembly, that is at the heart of the Good Friday agreement.
  Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, we are talking about the police board.
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I would remind noble Lords that we are on Report. The

  1667
  Minister had replied when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, stood up to make his intervention. Noble Lords should not speak after the Minister has replied.
  Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, may I continue? How is it possible to equate the statements that, for example, Mr Gerry Adams and Mr Martin McGuinness have made that they are committed to non-violence with the fact that when the bodies were recently supposed to be being returned by the IRA, Gerry Adams, leader of the West Belfast Brigade, went round and told the people who might be getting the bodies back that they must receive them quietly and bury them quietly?
  Whatever those people have said in political terms, they are surely not fit to be in charge of the police and legal proceedings of the country, particularly since Gerry Adams has said that he does not recognise British justice. I can see that as a member of the Assembly he may have a valuable contribution to make. But that is surely absolutely different from being responsible for the policing of the country.
  The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, it would be helpful for the purposes of debate, and I hope it would be helpful for the noble Baroness, if I were to repeat what it says in the Companion about Report. It says that only the mover of an amendment or the Lord in charge of the Bill should speak after the Minister on Report, except for short questions of elucidation to the Minister or where the Minister speaks early in order to assist the House in debate.
  The noble Lord, Lord Lamont, seems to have a problem with that. Perhaps he would like to rise and make his point.
  Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, this is an extremely serious matter. My noble friend is very well-informed and should be allowed to make her point.
  Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, the noble Baroness, who is very well-informed and has made many serious and sensible contributions to the debate, has made her point. I am reminding the House about procedure.
  Lord Glentoran: My Lords, if the noble Baroness the Leader of the House will forgive me, I believe that that little intervention rather lowered the tone of the debate that we have been having.
  I have been asked by the noble and learned Lord to withdraw the amendment. I listened to what was said by the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew and other noble Lords who have had great experience of Northern Ireland. How many noble Lords on the government side of the House are thinking through this for themselves?
  1668
  I understand parliamentary democracy. But I ask you all, when you go home tonight, to think about the truths that you have heard about the happenings in our country. And then I ask you to ask yourselves privately, with peace of mind, whether you would like to have one of those released terrorists in charge of your police force.
  I do not believe that the removal clauses are strong enough. But they are certainly better than the provisions in relation to disqualification. I shall seek to test the opinion of the House on Amendment No. 76.
  [Amendment No. 75 not moved.]
  11 p.m.
  Lord Rogan Lord Rogan moved Amendment No. 75A:
  Schedule 1, page 46, line 43. at end insert—

  ("(v) a Minister in the Government of Ireland;

  (vi) a Junior Minister in the Government of Ireland;

  (vii) a chairman or deputy chairman of—

  (a) a committee of the Dail Eireann (House of Representatives of Ireland);

  (b) a committee of the Seanad Eireann (Senate of Ireland); or

  (c) a joint committee of the Oireachtas (National Parliament of Ireland").

  The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 75A stems from the Disqualifications Bill Committee stage on Monday 6th November. During that debate it was established that, via the Disqualifications Bill, a Minister of the Government of Ireland could sit on the Northern Ireland Assembly. By virtue of their being a member of the Assembly they would have the possibility of receiving a party selection for the police board via the operation of the d'Hondt system. Yet Ministers and junior Ministers in the Northern Ireland Executive are expressly excluded from being on the police board. This simple amendment aims to address that anomaly. I beg to move.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the effect of Amendment No. 75A is to add to the list of offices which, if held, would disqualify the postholder from appointment to the board. It was raised on Monday night when we discussed the Disqualifications Bill. I can assure the noble Lord that we will look at this issue and talk to him about it before reaching the issue on Report in the Disqualification Bill. In the light of that, I ask him to withdraw his amendment.
  Lord Rogan: My Lords, in the light of those remarks, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Glentoran Lord Glentoran moved Amendment No. 76:
  Schedule 1, page 46, line 49, at end insert—

  ("(d) he has at any time been convicted of a scheduled offence under the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973, the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978, the Northern Ireland (Emergency

  1669
  Provisions) Act 1991, the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996 or Part VII of the Terrorism Act 2000;

  (e) he has at any time been convicted in Northern Ireland or elsewhere of any offence and has had passed on him a sentence of imprisonment (whether suspended or not);

  (f) the political party of which he is a member is linked to any organisation which has failed to begin the decommissioning of arms and explosives in a manner verified by the Commission referred to in section 7 of the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997;

  (g) he is not committed to non-violence and exclusively peaceful and democratic means; or

  (h) the political party of which he is a member is linked to an organisation that has failed to satisfy any of the four factors set out in section 3(9)(a), (b), (c) and (d) of the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998").

  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move.
  11.3 p.m.
  On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 76) shall be agreed to?
  Their Lordships divided: Contents, 33; Not-Contents, 116.

  Division No. 4

  CONTENTS

  Attlee, E.

  Lamont of Lerwick, L.

  Blatch, B.

  Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L

  Brabazon of Tara, L.

  Mayhew of Twysden, L.

  Bridgeman, V.

  Molyneaux of Killead, L.

  Monson, L.

  Brookeborough, V.

  Northbrook, L.

  Burnham. L. [Teller]

  Northesk, E.

  Cooke of Islandreagh, L.

  Norton of Louth, L.

  Cope of Berkeley, L.

  Palmer, L.

  Craigavon, V.

  Park of Monmouth, B.

  Dean of Harptree, L.

  Rogan, L.

  Dundee, E.

  Shrewsbury, E.

  Eden of Winton, L.

  Skelmersdale, L.

  Glentoran, L.

  Stodart of Leaston, L.

  Henley, L. [Teller]

  Thomas of Gwydir, L.

  Kirkham, L.

  Vivian, L.

  Laird, L.

  Willoughby de Broke, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Acton, L.

  Cohen of Pimlico, B.

  Addington, L.

  Crawley, B.

  Amos, B.

  Davies of Coity, L.

  Andrews, B.

  Davies of Oldham, L.

  Archer of Sandwell, L.

  Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B

  Ashton of Upholland, B.

  Desai, L.

  Bach, L.

  Dixon, L.

  Bassam of Brighton, L.

  Dubs, L.

  Berkeley, L.

  Elder, L.

  Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

  Evans of Parkside, L.

  Billingham, B.

  Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

  Birt, L.

  Falconer of Thoroton, L.

  Blackstone, B.

  Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

  Bragg, L.

  Faulkner of Worcester, L.

  Brennan, L.

  Filkin, L.

  Brett, L.

  Gale, B.

  Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

  Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

  Brookman, L.

  Gilbert, L.

  Burlison, L.

  Gladwin of Clee, L.

  Carter, L. [Teller]

  Goldsmith, L.

  Chandos, V.

  Goudie, B.

  Clarke of Hampstead, L.

  Gould of Potternewton, B.

  Cocks of Hartclifle, L.

  Grabiner, L.

  1670

  Graham of Edmonton, L.

  Morgan, L.

  Greengross, B.

  Morris of Castle Morris, L.

  Grenfell, L.

  Nicol, B.

  Hamwee, B.

  Orme, L.

  Hardy of Wath, L.

  Parekh, L.

  Harris of Haringey, L.

  Peston, L.

  Harris of Richmond, B.

  Puttnam, L.

  Harrison, L.

  Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

  Haskel, L.

  Rendell of Babergh, B.

  Hayman, B.

  Russell, E.

  Hollis of Heigham, B.

  Sainsbury of Turville, L.

  Howells of St. Davids, B.

  Sawyer, L.

  Hoyle, L.

  Scotland of Asthal, B.

  Hughes of Woodside, L.

  Sewel, L.

  Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

  Sheppard of Liverpool, L.

  Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

  Shutt of Greetland, L.

  Simon, V.

  Islwyn, L.

  Smith of Clifton, L.

  Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord Privy Seal)

  Smith of Leigh, L.

  Stone of Blackheath, L.

  Judd, L.

  Symons of Vernham Dean, B

  Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

  Taylor of Blackburn, L.

  King of West Bromwich, L.

  Thornton, B.

  Layard, L.

  Tomlinson, L.

  Lea of Crondall, L.

  Turner of Camden, B.

  Lipsey, L.

  Wakefield, Bp.

  Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

  Warner, L.

  Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

  Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

  McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

  Whitaker, B.

  Whitty, L.

  McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

  Wilkins, B.

  MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

  Williams of Crosby, B.

  Williams of Mostyn, L.

  Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L

  Winston, L.

  Methuen, L.

  Woolmer of Leeds, L.

  Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B

  Young of Dartington, L.

  Mitchell, L.

  Young of Old Scone, B.

  Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
  11.13 p.m.
  Lord Rogan Lord Rogan moved Amendment No. 77:
  Schedule 1, page 49, line 28, leave out sub-paragraphs (1) to (4).
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 77, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 78. These amendments are of a pragmatic nature. Together, they would remove the detailed provisions that dictate the procedure for calling a meeting to discuss the possibility of initiating an inquiry. Surely, the details should be related to the meeting at which the decision to initiate an inquiry is taken. The current elaborate procedures in the Bill are totally impractical and place an unnecessary fetter on the ability of the board to call for reports and inquiries. It is the power to call for reports and inquiries which enables the board to hold others to account and thus creates transparency in policing.
  I suggest that a safeguard is already provided, in that a substantial number of board members must approve an inquiry before it is initiated. What is the value of that unnecessary and bureaucratic red tape? I urge noble Lords to embrace a pragmatic approach to the procedures by adopting the two amendments and creating a situation in which it is feasible for the board, where necessary, to call for that report or inquiry. I beg to move.
  11.15 p.m.
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 77 and 78 seek to remove the provision requiring the chairman of the board to notify members of a meeting to consider a request for an inquiry. The noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond, tabled similar amendments in Committee.
  The Government's view is that the provisions in the Bill, Schedule 1, paragraph 18, which are based on arrangements already in place in local government legislation in Northern Ireland—the Local Government Act (Northern Ireland) 1972—are unexceptional. The use of the inquiry power itself would only arise in grave or exceptional circumstances. It seems to the Government that a mechanism should be in place to ensure that all members are aware of meetings to discuss such important issues.
  The noble Lord, Lord Rogan, referred to the safeguards that are in place at a subsequent meeting at which a decision would be taken as to whether or not to proceed with the inquiry. We believe it is important that all members of the board should be aware of a meeting that is to discuss that possibility. Therefore, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, not to press the amendment.
  Lord Rogan: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 78 not moved.]
  Schedule 3 [District policing partnerships:]
  Lord Laird Lord Laird moved Amendment No. 79:
  Schedule 3, page 55, line 39, leave out ("in the case of an independent member.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to move Amendment No. 79. It is not equitable or fair that there should be a distinction made between those people who are political members or independent members of a district policing partnership. The amendment would mean that a political or independent member could be removed from the district policing partnership prior to appointment for failing to disclose a criminal conviction. I think that is important. We think that is important. It is difficult to see why there should be that distinction. I beg to move.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, in this grouping I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 80, 81, 82, 83 and 83A. Several of these amendments stand in my name and the names of my noble friends. As the noble Lord, Lord Laird, has said, the amendments concern the members of district policing partnerships. There are two kinds of member. There are so-called independent members and so-called political members. Some of the restrictions on membership apply only to the independent members. There is no reason why they should not apply also to the political members.
  The noble Lord referred to Amendment No. 79, which proposes that a political member should not be allowed to continue on the board—by contrast with an
  1672
  independent member—if he has failed to disclose a conviction. I shall not go into the detail of the amendments because they are similar.
  However, I should draw your Lordships' attention to Amendment No. 82. Under paragraph 8(2) a person is disqualified from membership of a district policing partnership if he has at any time been convicted of an offence and has had a sentence of imprisonment passed upon him. But that applies only to the independent members. So some of these terrorists and other criminals could be appointed to the district policing partnerships. This was discussed earlier in connection with similar appointments at a higher level. Therefore I will not labour the point. Given the horrific crimes for which some of them have been responsible I do not think that they are suitable to serve on district policing partnerships.
  One needs to remember in considering this that it is not just a question of helping to manage the police force as it might be in some part of England, Wales or Scotland. There are parts of Northern Ireland where the rackets are intense and exceptionally vicious. Many of the beatings and murders now taking place in Northern Ireland are connected with those rackets. They are entrenched in the community. They will have to be eliminated if Northern Ireland is to have a peaceful life in the future. If we allow criminals at that level to sit on the district policing partnerships, they simply will not work. What is more, they will help to undermine the police in all that they are doing and in their attempts to get on top of the rackets.
  Ten years ago I was making speeches in Northern Ireland in which I said that part of the momentum of terrorism was the politics of the situation but that another part of the momentum of the terrorism—that was the case even then but it is more so now—was the rackets and the finances. The Mafia started as a political organisation. It has not been a political organisation for a long time but it has had a serious effect on the life of Sicily and other parts of Italy and it has spread out to many other parts of the world over the past century. The paramilitary organisations in Northern Ireland on both sides of the sectarian divide are of exactly the same character. They try to control different sections of Belfast. It is those people that it is suggested could remain members of district policing partnerships. It is quite wrong and very dangerous for the future of Northern Ireland.
  Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, I believe that the independent members are being discriminated against. I shall not talk about the criminal activities—I made myself clear during the previous debate about the board. The DPPs will replace police liaison committees. Are the same indiscretions permitted on those committees? The liaison committees have been particularly instrumental in bringing the two communities together in a forum where they have been able to discuss policing and local crime. It is intended that community co-operation should be improved. If

  1673
  we discriminate against the independent members and the political members, that will not be conducive to such co-operation.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, as under Schedule 1 in relation to the police board, Amendments Nos. 79 to 83 seek to tighten the disqualification and removal provisions for district policing partnership members and particularly for political appointments. Similar arguments apply in relation to these amendments as applied on the group of amendments which we recently discussed. The latter is particularly relevant for DPPs where the powers are so much more limited in relation to the police boards.
  We must look at the safeguards which are in place and are in the Bill. For councillors, who represent the pool from which the political members are taken, there are already criminal record disqualifications. The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, adverted to those earlier. In summary, individuals would be disqualified if imprisoned for three months or more, whether suspended or not, until their sentence and then a period of five years had elapsed. There are disqualification provisions for independents too—a sentence of imprisonment, whether suspended or not. Both independents and councillors are subject to removal provisions under paragraph 7 of Schedule 3; for example, if they are convicted or fail to comply with their terms of appointment or fail to disclose convictions. It is also relevant that the board makes appointments, and the Secretary of State will issue a code on how this should be done. There is also the default provision in Clause 15 which we have already debated.
  As we said in Committee and earlier tonight, the Government believe that the Bill has an appropriate balance between inclusivity and safeguards. The noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, referred to the CPLCs. These bodies are established by the police authorities. As far as I am aware, those CPLCs involve councillors being appointed without checks beyond those which apply when they are seeking appointment as councillors. Thus, in relation to the political members of the DPPs and the councillor members on the CPLCs, the same principles would apply as regards whether or not a person could become a councillor. Subject to the point I made about the councillor members of the CPLCs, they are not statutory bodies and therefore there are no statutory disqualifications beyond those that apply to councillors.
  The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, did not speak to Amendment No 83A, so I shall not reply to it.
  Lord Laird: My Lords, as the proposer of Amendment No. 79, I have listened carefully to what has been said by the Minister. I shall couple that with the fact that noble Lords on some Benches in this
  1674
  House have attempted to allow opportunities for the peace process in Northern Ireland to be enhanced rather than put under stress and strain, as it has been tonight. I wonder how some of the activities we have seen tonight will be reported in the Northern Ireland press, especially in terms of support for those people whose sacrifice has been extreme. I propose to test the opinion of the House on this amendment.
  11.26 p.m.
  On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 79) shall be agreed to?
  Their Lordships divided: Contents, 31; Not-Contents, 106.

  Division No. 5

  CONTENTS

  Attlee, E.

  Lamont of Lerwick, L.

  Blatch, B.

  Lyell, L.

  Brabazon of Tara, L.

  Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L

  Bridgeman, V.

  Mayhew of Twysden, L.

  Brookeborough, V.

  Molyneaux of Killead, L.

  Burnham, L.

  Monson, L.

  Cooke of Islandreagh, L

  Montrose, D.

  Cope of Berkeley, L.

  Northbrook, L.

  Craigavon, V.

  Northesk, E.

  Dean of Harptree, L.

  Norton of Louth, L.

  Dundee, E.

  Palmer, L.

  Eden of Winton, L.

  Park of Monmouth, B.

  Glentoran, L.

  Rogan, L.

  Shrewsbury, E.

  Henley, L. [Teller]

  Stodart of Leaston, L.

  Laird, L. [Teller]

  Vivian, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Acton, L.

  Falconer of Thoroton, L.

  Addington, L.

  Farrington of Ribbleton, B

  Alli, L,

  Faulkner of Worcester, L.

  Amos, B.

  Filkin, L.

  Andrews, B.

  Gale, B.

  Archer of Sandwell, L.

  Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

  Ashton of Upholland, B.

  Gilbert, L.

  Bach, L.

  Gladwin of Clee, L.

  Bassam of Brighton, L.

  Goldsmith, L.

  Berkeley, L.

  Goudie, B.

  Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

  Gould of Potternewton, B.

  Billingham, B.

  Grabiner, L.

  Birt, L.

  Graham of Edmonton, L.

  Blackstone, B.

  Grenfell, L.

  Bragg, L.

  Harris of Haringey, L.

  Brennan, L.

  Harris of Richmond, B.

  Brett, L.

  Harrison, L.

  Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

  Haskel, L.

  Brookman, L.

  Hayman, B.

  Burlison, L.

  Hollis of Heigham, B.

  Carter, L. [Teller]

  Howells of St. Davids, B.

  Chandos, V.

  Hoyle, L.

  Clarke of Hampstead, L.

  Hughes of Woodside, L.

  Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

  Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

  Cohen of Pimlico, B.

  Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

  Crawley, B.

  Davies of Coity, L.

  Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord Privy Seat)

  Davies of Oldham, L.

  Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

  Judd, L.

  Desai, L.

  Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

  Dixon, L.

  King of West Bromwich, L.

  Dubs, L.

  Layard, L.

  Elder, L.

  Lea of Crondall, L.

  Evans of Parkside, L.

  Lipsey, L.

  Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

  Lofthoase of Pontefract, L.

  1675

  Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

  Sewel, L.

  McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

  Sheppard of Liverpool, L.

  Shutt of Greetland, L.

  McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

  Simon, V.

  MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

  Smith of Clifton, L.

  Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

  Smith of Leigh, L.

  Mar and Kellie, E.

  Stone of Blackheath, L.

  Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

  Symons of Vernham Dean, B

  Mitchell, L.

  Thornton, B.

  Morgan, L.

  Tomlinson, L.

  Morris of Castle Morris, L.

  Turner of Camden, B.

  Wakefield, Bp.

  Nicol, B.

  Warner, L.

  Puttnam, L.

  Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

  Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

  Whitaker, B.

  Rendell of Babergh, B.

  Whitty, L.

  Russell, E.

  Wilkins, B.

  Sainsbury of Turville, L.

  Williams of Mostyn, L.

  Sawyer, L.

  Winston, L.

  Scotland of Asthal, B.

  Young of Old Scone, B.

  Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
  11.36 p.m.
  [Amendments Nos. 80 and 81 not moved.]
  Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 82:
  Schedule 3, page 56, line 11, leave out ("an independent") and insert ("a").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move.
  11.37 p.m.
  On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 82) shall be agreed to?
  Their Lordships divided: Contents, 30; Not-Contents, 104.

  Division No. 6

  CONTENTS

  Attlee, E.

  Lamont of Lerwick, L.

  Blatch, B.

  Lyell, L.

  Brabazon of Tara, L.

  Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

  Bridgeman, V.

  Mayhew of Twysden, L.

  Brookeborough, V.

  Molyneaux of Killead, L.

  Burnham, L.

  Monson, L.

  Cooke of Islandreagh, L.

  Northbrook, L.

  Cope of Berkeley, L.

  Northesk, E.

  Craigavon, V.

  Norton of Louth, L.

  Dean of Harptree, L.

  Palmer, L.

  Dundee, E.

  Park of Monmouth, B.

  Eden of Winton, L.

  Rogan, L.

  Glentoran, L. [Teller]

  Shrewsbury, E.

  Henley, L. [Teller]

  Stodart of Leaston, L.

  Laird, L.

  Vivian, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Acton, L.

  Billingham, B.

  Addington, L.

  Birt, L.

  Alli, L.

  Blackstone, B.

  Amos, B.

  Bragg, L.

  Andrews, B.

  Brennan, L.

  Archer of Sandwell, L.

  Brett, L.

  Ashton of Upholland, B.

  Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

  Bach, L.

  Brookman, L.

  Bassam of Brighton, L.

  Burlison, L.

  Berkeley, L.

  Carter, L. [Teller]

  Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

  Chandos, V.

  1676

  Clarke of Hampstead, L.

  Lea of Crondall, L.

  Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

  Lipsey, L.

  Cohen of Pimlico, B.

  Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

  Crawley, B.

  Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

  Davies of Coity, L.

  McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

  Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

  Desai, L.

  McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

  Dixon, L.

  MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

  Dubs, L.

  Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L

  Elder, L.

  Mar and Kellie, E.

  Evans of Parkside, L.

  Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B

  Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

  Mitchell, L.

  Falconer of Thoroton, L.

  Morgan, L.

  Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

  Morris of Castle Morris, L.

  Faulkner of Worcester, L.

  Nicol, B.

  Filkin, L.

  Puttnam, L.

  Gale, B.

  Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

  Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

  Rendell of Babergh, B.

  Gilbert, L.

  Russell, E.

  Gladwin of Clee, L.

  Sainsbury of Turville, L.

  Goldsmith, L.

  Sawyer, L.

  Goudie, B.

  Scotland of Asthal, B.

  Gould of Potternewton, B.

  Sewel, L.

  Grabiner, L.

  Sheppard of Liverpool, L.

  Graham of Edmonton, L.

  Shutt of Greetland, L.

  Grenfell, L.

  Simon, V.

  Harris of Haringey, L.

  Smith of Clifton, L.

  Harris of Richmond, B.

  Smith of Leigh, L.

  Harrison, L.

  Stone of Blackheath, L.

  Haskel, L.

  Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

  Hayman, B.

  Thornton, B.

  Hollis of Heigham, B.

  Tomlinson, L.

  Howells of St. Davids, B.

  Turner of Camden, B.

  Hoyle, L.

  Wakefield, Bp.

  Hughes of Woodside, L.

  Warner, L.

  Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

  Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

  Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord Privy Seal)

  Whitaker, B.

  Whitty, L.

  Judd, L.

  Wilkins, B.

  Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

  Williams of Mostyn, L.

  King of West Bromwich, L.

  Winston, L.

  Layard, L.

  Young of Old Scone, B.

  Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
  11.46 p.m.
  [Amendments Nos. 83 and 83A not moved.]
  Schedule 7 [Transitional and transitory provisions]:
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 84:
  Page 72, line 40, leave out ("20") and insert ("21").
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 84 is a technical drafting point to fix an erroneous numbering reference in paragraph 4 of Schedule 7. That paragraph would then refer to Section 21 rather than Section 20. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.

Trustee Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.
House adjourned at thirteen minutes before midnight.

  Sudanese Diplomats in London: Domestic Servants
  Sudanese Diplomats in London: Domestic Servants
  Immigration Act Detainees
  Immigration Act Detainees
  Passport Format Standardisation
  Passport Format Standardisation
  Excess Winter Death Statistics
  Excess Winter Death Statistics
  UK Tourism and Strength of Sterling
  UK Tourism and Strength of Sterling
  National Lottery Operator's Licence
  National Lottery Operator's Licence
  Departmental Cars
  Departmental Cars
  Overseas Territories Governors and Parliamentary Delegations
  Overseas Territories Governors and Parliamentary Delegations
  European Union: Forthcoming Council Business
  European Union: Forthcoming Council Business
  Cuba: Consular Access to Detained Britons
  Cuba: Consular Access to Detained Britons
  Ballistic Missile Defence: UK/US Dialogue
  Ballistic Missile Defence: UK/US Dialogue
  Repatriation of Bodies within the EU
  Repatriation of Bodies within the EU
  Cayman Islands: Public Sector Trade Union Representation
  Cayman Islands: Public Sector Trade Union Representation
  Sudan: Return of Abducted Persons
  Sudan: Return of Abducted Persons
  North Korea: Diplomatic Relations
  North Korea: Diplomatic Relations
  School Performance Tables: Age Group Anomalies
  School Performance Tables: Age Group Anomalies
  Caravans and Site Numbers
  Caravans and Site Numbers
  Motorway Construction
  Motorway Construction
  Reserve Forces Specialist Support
  Reserve Forces Specialist Support
  RAMC Site, Millbank: Sale
  RAMC Site, Millbank: Sale
  Army Rifle: Calibre
  Army Rifle: Calibre
  Fishing Industry: Safety Measures
  Fishing Industry: Safety Measures
  Manchester: Employment Schemes for Chronically Sick and Disabled People
  Manchester: Employment Schemes for Chronically Sick and Disabled People
  Brain Injury Services in the North West
  Brain Injury Services in the North West